This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007 /2003-05 REGD . NO . D. L. ( N) 04/0007/ 2003-05 भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED, BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं० 10]

No. 10]

नई दिल्ली, मार्च 5- मार्च 11 , 2006 , शनिवार /फाल्गुन 14 फाल्गुन 20, 1927

NEW DELHI, MARCH 5-MARCH 11 , 2006 , SATURDAY /PHALGUNA 14- PHALGUNA 20 , 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)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 901.- केन्द्र सरकार , दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 की अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार के राजनैतिक ( सर्तकता स्कंध ) विभाग द्वारा जारी दिनांक 8 नवम्बर , 2005 की दिसपुर की अधिसूचना संख्या पी.एल.ए. ( 5 ) 163/ 2001/ 170 - क द्वारा असम सरकार की सहमति से श्री जे . एस. एल. वसावा , ( भारतीय प्रशासंनिक सेवा ) , आयुक्त एवं सचिव, असम सरकार द्वारा करोड़ों रुपये इक्ट्ठे करने और उनके द्वारा आय के ज्ञात स्त्रोतों से अधिक चल और अचल परिसम्पत्ति अर्जित करने के क्रम में सरकारी सेवा में उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई कथित भ्रष्ट पद्धतियों से सम्बद्ध अपराधों का, भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 के संगत प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत अन्वेषण करने और उपर्युक्त अपराध से जुड़े अथवा उससे संसक्त किन्हीं अपराधों, प्रयत्नों दुष्प्रेरणों 514 G1/06

(1985)

और षड्यंत्रों तथा उपर्युक्त अधिकारी द्वारा की गई वित्तीय अनियमितताओं के संबंध में किए गए किन्हीं अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने और दोषी व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध आपराधिक अभियोजन दायर करने के लिए एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तिऔर अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/66/2005- एवीडी- II ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 28th February , 2006

S.O. 901. In exercise of the powerswers conferredby Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946 ) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Assam, Political (Vigilance Cell ) Department vide Notification No. PLA (V) 163/2001/170 dated 1986

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

Dispur , the 8th November , 2005 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for investigation of the offences in connection with alleged corrupt practices in Government service by collecting crores of rupees and acquiring Movable and Immovable assets disproportionate to his known source of income by Shri J. S. L Vasava , IAS , Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam under the relevent provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for any other offence (s ) attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the said offence and any offences committed in regard to financial irregularities done by the officer and lodging a criminal prosecution against the guilty person.

by Notification No. 33/1994 Cus (NT) dated 1-7-1994 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Department ofRevenue, New Delhi , I hereby declare the place Plappilly inAmballoor Panchayat ( Kanjiramattom P.O. ) comprising the landed property of area extending 50 Ares and 39 Sq. Mtrs (One Acre 24 cents and 500 sq . links ) bearing Survey No. 150/1 part--Block 20 of Keecherry Village of Kanayannoor Taluk in Ernakulam District in the State of Kerala to be a warehousing station under Section 9 of Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) for the limited purpose of setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Unit by M/ s Decor Mats (Pvt) Ltd. , 11/77 , Calvetty Road , Kochi -682001 as approved by the Development Commissioner , Government of India, Ministry of Commerce , Cochin Special Economic Zone , Kakkanad, Cochin- 37 .

[No. 228/66/2005 -AVD . II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग )

[F. C. No. VIII/48/04/06- Cus (T) ] P. AYYAM PERUMAL, Commissioner केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006 आयकर

(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद एवं सीमाशुल्क आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) कोचिन आयुक्तालय कोचिन, 16 फरवरी , 2006 सं. 02/2006 - कस्टम ( एन.टी. )

का. आ. 903.- एत‌द्वारा आम सूचना के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ ( अनन्य रूप से अनुसंधान के विद्यमान ) की श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 1-4-2003 से 31-3-2006 तक की अवधिके लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ संगठन टाटा इंस्टीच्यूट ऑफ फंडामेंटल रिसर्च, होमी भाभा रोड, मुम्बई -400 005 को अनुमोदित करती है: -

(i) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों का लेखा अलग रखेगा ।

का. आ. 902.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली के दिनांक 01-07-1994 की अधिसूचना सं . 33/1994 कस्टम ( एन.टी. ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं , केरल राज्य, एरणाकुलम जिला के कणयन्नूर तालुक के कीचेरी गांव के सर्वेक्षण सं. 150/1 , भाग- ब्लाक 20 वाले 50 आर्स एवं 39 स्क्वायर मीटर्स ( 1 एकड़, 24 सेंट्स एवं 500 स्कोयर लिंकस ) के क्षेत्र की भू- संपत्ति शामिल आंबलूर पंचायत ( कांजिरामट्टम पी ओ ) में प्लाप्पिल्ली नामक स्थान को सीमाशुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 52) की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य मंत्रालय के कोचिन विशेष आर्थिक क्षेत्र, काक्नडु , कोचिन-37 के विकास आयुक्त द्वारा अनुमोदित मैसर्स डेकोर मैट्स ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड, 11/77 , कलवेट्टी रोड , कोच्ची-682001 द्वारा 100% निर्यात आधारित एकक गठित करने के सीमित प्रयोजन के लिए एतद्वारा भंगारण क्षेत्र घोषित करता हूं ।

[फा. सी सं. VIII/48/04/06- कस ( टी ) ] पी. अय्यम पेरुमाल, आयुक्त

(ii) प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए जिसके लिए यह अनुमोदन प्रदान किया जा रहा है , अनुमोदित संगठन अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों के संबंध में जिसके लिए इसे आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , क्षेत्राधिकार वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को अपने आय व्यय के लेखापरीक्षित लेखा की प्रति आय की विवरणी दायर करने की तारीख को या उससे पहले अथवा 90 दिनों के अन्दर जो भी बाद में हो , प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन उपर्युक्त पैरा ( ii ) में उल्लिखित आय तथा व्यय लेखा के साथ लेखा परीक्षक से प्राप्त एक प्रमाणपत्र भी संलग्न करेगा जिसमें: - MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS COCHIN) COMMISSIONERATE Cochin, the 16th February, 2006 No. 02/2006- CUSTOMS ( NT)

(क) वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान/सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए संगठन द्वारा प्राप्त की गई उस राशि का उल्लेख होगा , जिसके संबंध में दाता धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ).के तहत छूट का दावा करने के लिए पात्र होंगे । S. O. 902. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 as delegated [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1987

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

(ख ) यह प्रमाणित करना कि किया गया व्यय सामाजिक विज्ञान/सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए ही था । [अधिसूचना सं. 28/2006/फा. सं. 203 /39/2004-

आ.क.नि. II ]

निधि सिंह, अवर सचिव (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

INCOME- TAX

S. O. 903. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organization Tata Institute of Fundamen- tal Research , Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai-400005 has been approved by the Central Government for the pur- pose of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 for the period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2006 under the category of scientific research association (ex- isting solely for research) subject to the following condi- tions :-

(1).The approved organization shall maintain sepa- rate accounts for its research activities .

(ii) For each of the financial years for which this ap- proval is being given , the approved organization shall submit a copy of its audited Income & Ex- penditure account in respect of the research ac- tivities for which it has been approved under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of I.T. Act , 1961 to the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction, on or be- fore the due date of filing of return of income or within 90 days from the date of this notification , whichever expires later.

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

(a) specifying the amount received by the or- ganization for scientific research/statisti- cal research in respect ofwhich the donors are eligible to claim deduction under clause (ii) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 .

(b) certifying that the expenditure incurred was for research in social science/statistical re- search .

[Notification No. 28/2006/ F. No. 203/39/2004- ITA- I] NIDHI SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2006

आयकर

का. आ. 904.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकरी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ दिनांक1-4-2003 से दिनांक 31-3-2006 तक की अवधि के लिए संगठन दि पैट्रोलियम कन्जेर्वेशन रिसर्च एसोसिएशन, नई दिल्ली को आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान में संलग्न " संस्था" श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करती है :-

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

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

(iii) यह संगठन अनुमोदित उपर्युक्त पैरा ( ii ) में सदर्भित आय तथा व्यय खाते के साथ लेखा परीक्षक से प्राप्त एक प्रमाणपत्र भी संलग्न करेगा: -

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

(ख) जिसमें यह प्रमाणित किया गया हो कि किया गया व्यय वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए ही था। [अधिसूचना सं . 37/2006/फा, सं. 203/13/2005-. आयकर नि. II ]

दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th February, 2006 INCOME-TAX

S. O. 904. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organization M/ s . The Petroleum Con- servation Research Association, New Delhi has been approvedby the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) ofSub- section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 , read with Rule 6 ofthe Income Tax Rules , 1962 for theperiod from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2006 under the category of " Institution" partly engaged in research subject to the following conditions

The approved organization shall maintain sepa- coounts for its research activities .

1988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

(ii) For each of the financial years for which thịs approval is being given, the approved organiza- tion shall submit a copy of its audited Income & Expenditure account in respect of the research activities for which it has been approved under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of I.T. Act , 1961 to the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of In- come Tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction , on or before the due date of filing of return of income or within 90 days from the date of this notification, whichever expires later.

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

(a) specifying the amount received by the or- ganization for scientific research in respect ofwhich the donors are eligible to claim de- duction under clause ( ii) of sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 35 .

(b) certifying that the expenditure incurred was for scientific research .

[Notification No. 37/2006/ F . No. 203 / 13 /2005 - ITA - II ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2006

आयकर

का. आ. 905.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकरी के लिए एत‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " विश्वविद्यालय , कॉलेज अथवा अन्य संस्था " जो अंशतः अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में कार्यरत है, ( और न कि अनुसंधान के लिए मौजूद एक मात्र ' वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ' के रूप में है ) , की श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 1-4- 2001 से दिनांक 31-3-2004 तक की अवधि के लिए नेशनल काउंसिल आफ साइंस म्युजियम , कोलकाता को संस्था की श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करती है: -

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

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

[ PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (iii) यह संगठन अनुमोदित उपर्युक्त पैरा ( ii ) में सदर्भित आय एवं व्यय खाते के साथ लेखा परीक्षक से प्राप्त एक प्रमाणपत्र भी संलग्न करेगा जिसमें: -

(क) जिसमें संगठन द्वारा सामाजिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त की गई उस राशि का उल्लेख किया गया हो, जिसके लिए दानकर्त्ता धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उप खंड ( ii ) के अन्तर्गत कटौती का दावा करने के लिए पात्र हैं।

(ख) जिसमें यह प्रमाणित किया गया हो कि किया गया व्यय वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए ही था । [अधिसूचना सं. 38 /2006/फा. सं . 203/108/2003- आयकर नि. II ] दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th February , 2006 INCOME- TAX

S. O. 905. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organization M/ s . National Council of Science Museum , Kolkata has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income tax Rules , 1962 for the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004 under the category of "University, College or other Institution " partly engaged in research activities ( and not as a scientific research association existing solely for research ) subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The approved organization shall maintain sepa- rate accounts for its research activities .

(ii) For each of the financial years for which this approval is being given , the approved organiza- tion shall submit a copy of its audited Income and Expenditure account in respect of the re- search activities for which it has been approved under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of I.T. Act , 1961 to the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction , on or before the due date of filing of return of income or within 90 days from the date of this notification , whichever expires later .

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

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

1989

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(b) certifying that the expenditure incurredwas for scientific research .

[Notification No. 38/2006/F . No. 203 / 108/2003 - ITA- II] DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2006

स्टाम्प

का. आ. 906. 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 एत‌द्वारा पॉवर फाइनेंस कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, नई दिल्ली को मात्र एक करोड़, उनतीस लाख, छियालीस हजार, तीन सौ रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति देती है, जो उक्त निगम द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र तीन सौ उनचास करोड़, नब्बे लाख रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस लाख रुपए के 00000001 से 00003499 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋणपत्रों के स्वरूप वाले असुरक्षित विमोच्य गैर परिवर्तनीय गैर संचय कर योग्य बंधपत्रों XXIII श्रृंखला पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है । [सं. 4/2006- स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/4/2006- बि.क. ]

आर.जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 10th February , 2006

STAMPS

S.. O. 906.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of sub- Section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) , the Central Government hereby permits Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees on crore twenty nine lakh forty six thousand three hundred only charge- able on account of the stamp duty on Unsecured Redeem- ableNon-Convertible Non Cumulative Taxable Bonds -XXIII Series in the nature of Debentures bearing distinctive num- ber from 00000001 to 00003499 of rupees ten lakh each aggregating to rupees three hundred forty nine core ninety lakh only, to be issued by the said Corporation .

[No.4/2006- STAMP/F. No. 33/4/2006- ST] R.G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2006

स्टाम्प

का. आ. 907.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का2 ) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा सेन्चूरियन बैंक, मुम्बई कोमात्र एक लाख पचास हजार रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति प्रदान करती है , जो उक्त बैंक द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र चार करोड़ रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस लाख रुपए के ऋणपत्रों के स्वरूप वाले असुरक्षित गैर परिवर्तनीय विमोच्य गौण बंधपत्रों (श्रृंखला- ई ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[सं. 5/2006 - स्टाम्प/फा. सं. 33/ 05/2006-बि.क. ]

आर.जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 10th February , 2006 STAMPS

S. O. 907. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian StampAct , 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Centurion Bank, Mumbai to pay consolidated stamp duty ofrupees one lakh fifty thousand only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on unsecured non - convertible redeemable subordinated bonds (Series -E) in the nature of debentures of rupees ten lakh each aggregating to rupees four crore only, to be issued by the said Bank .

[No. 5 /2006 - STAMP/F . No. 33 /5/ 2006 - ST] R.G. CHHABRA, Under Secy .

आर्थिक कार्य विभाग

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 908.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा १ की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री मौलिन ए वैष्णव, निवासी 8 , आनंद नगर सोसायटी , न्यू इंडिया मील के निकट, जेतलपुर रोड, बडोदरा , गुजरात -390007 को अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके स्थान पर किसी अन्य व्यक्तिको नामित किए जाने तक, जो भी पहले हो, बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा केबोर्ड में अंशकालिक, गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा०सं० 9 /29/2005- बीओ -1 ] जी.बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव Department ofEconomic Affairs (Banking Division) New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2006

S. O. 908.-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 Maulin A. Vaishnav , resident of 8 , Anand Nagar Society, Near New India Mill , Jetalpur Road , Vadodara, Gujarat - 390 007 , as part-time non- official Director ofBank ofBaroda for a period of three years from the date 1990

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 3rd March , 2006

of notification or until his successor is nominated, whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/29/2005 -BO- I] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2006

S. O. 909.- 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 Romesh Sabharwal , resident ofA - 2/3 , M.S. Flats , Peshwa Road, Gole Market, New Delhi - 110001 as part -timenon-official Director on the Board of Central Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of notification or until his successor is nominated , whichever is earlier.

का. आ. 909.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी. कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3 क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा श्री रोमेश सभरवाल, निवासी ए 2/3, एम एस फ्लैट्स, पेशवा रोड, गोल मार्किट, नई दिल्ली-110001 को अधिसूचना जारी होने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके स्थान पर किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नामित किए जाने तक, जो भी पहले हो, सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक, गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[F. No. 9/33/2005-BO- I ]

G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

[फा०सं ० 9/33/2005- बीओ- I ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 910.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, सिगरेट और अन्य तंबाकू उत्पाद ( विज्ञापन का प्रतिषेध और व्यापार तथा वाणिज्य, उत्पादन, प्रदाय और वितरण का विनियमन ) अधिनियम , 2003 की धारा 25 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ ( 3 ) में उपदर्शित अधिकारियों को सार्वजनिक स्थानों पर धूम्रपान के प्रतिषेध को कार्यान्वित करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है और जो उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4 के अधीन कार्य करने के लिए सक्षम होंगे ।

सारणी

क्रम सं.

कार्यालय

प्राधिकृत व्यक्ति

(2)

(3)

(1)

निदेशक

1. कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय

(प्रशासन-1)

पांचवां तल , ' ए ' विंग डा. आर.पी. रोड,

नई दिल्ली-110001

2. क्षेत्रीय निदेशक ( उत्तर )

क्षेत्रीय निदेशक, ( उत्तर )

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय

पीडीआईएल भवन , ए-14 , सेक्टर -1 ,

गौतम बुद्ध नगर,

नोएडा ( यूपी ) -201 301

3. क्षेत्रीयं निदेशक ( पूर्व )

क्षेत्रीय निदेशक, ( पूर्व )

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय,

निज़ाम प्लेस , 2 एम.एस.ओ. भवन,

दूसरा तल , 234/4 ,

आचार्य जे.सी. बोस रोड,

कोलकाता-700 020

4. क्षेत्रीय निदेशक ( दक्षिण )

क्षेत्रीय निदेशक , ( दक्षिण )

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय,

शास्त्री भवन, पांचवां तल और 26 हैडोज रोड,

चैन्नई , तमिलनाडु -600 006 1991

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(2)

(3)

(1)

5. क्षेत्रीय निदेशक ( पश्चिम )

क्षेत्रीय निदेशक, ( पश्चिम)

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, एवरेस्टपांचवां तल , 100, नेताजी सुभाष रोड, मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र-400 002

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार,

हैदराबाद, कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, द्वितीय तल, सी.पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. भवन, केन्द्रीय सदन, सुल्तान , बाजार, कोटी, हैदराबाद आन्ध्र प्रदेश-500 195

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, पटना

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार , पटना कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, मौर्यलोक कांप्लेक्स, चौथा तल , ' ए' ब्लाक डाक बंगला रोड, पटना, बिहार -800 001

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, पुणे

8. कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, पुणे

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय , पीएमटी भवन, पुणे स्टाक एक्सचेंज, तृतीय तल, डेक्कन जिमखाना पुणे-411004

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार-सह- कार्यालय

समापक, गोवा

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, गोवा कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, प्लाट नं . 21 , ईडीसी कांप्लेक्स, पट्टो पणजी, गोवा-403001

10.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार-सह- कार्यालय समापक, जम्मू

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, जम्मू कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय , 405 से 40 , बहु प्लाजा, चौथा तल साउथ ब्लाक, राय हेड कांप्लेक्स, जम्मू-180012

11.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, एणाकुलम

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, केरल कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, प्रथम तल, कंपनी लॉ भवन , बीएमसी रोड, धृक्काकारा ( पी.ओ. ) कोची, केरल-682021

12.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार , ( मुंबई )

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, महाराष्ट्र

कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, एवरेस्ट 100 , मेरिन ड्राईव , मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र-400 002 1992

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

(2)

(1)

(3)

13.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार , पांडिचेरी

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, पांडिचेरी कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय , 35 एलेन्गो III क्रॉस नगर प्रथम तल, मंडिचेरी -605011

14.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार , जयपुर

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, जयपुर कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, 132, विजय नगर, करतारपुरा, नया करतारपुरा रेलवे स्टेशन, जयपुर-302008

15.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार , कोलकाता

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कोलकाता कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय , निजाम प्लेस , II , एम. एस.ओ. भवन, द्वितीय तल, 234/4, आचार्य जगदीश चंद्र बोस रोड, कोलकाता-700020

16.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, शिलांग

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, शिलांग कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय , मोरेलो भवन, भूतल, कचहरी रोड, शिलांग-793001

17.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कटक

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कटक कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, चलचित्र भवन, द्वितीय तल, बक्सी बाजार , कटक, उड़ीसा-75.3001

18.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, चैन्नई

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, चैन्नई कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, शास्त्रीभवन, द्वितीय हैडोज रोड, चैन्नई, तमिलनाडु-600006

19.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कोयंबटूर

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कोयंबटूर कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, कोयंबटूर स्टॉक एक्सचेंज भवन, दूसरा 683 , ट्राईसिटी रोड, सिंगानालार, कोयंबटूर-641005

20.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, बंगलौर

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, बंगलौर कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, " ई " विंग , द्वितीय तल, केन्द्रीय सदन, कोरामनाला, कर्नाटक-34 1993 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(1)

21.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, अहमदाबाद

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, अहमदाबाद कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, आरओसी भवन, रूपल पार्क के सामने , एनआर अंकुर बस स्टेंड, नारनपुरा , अहमदाबाद-380013

22.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, ग्वालियर,

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, ग्वालियर, कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय , " ए" ब्लॉक, संजय कांप्लेक्स, तृतीय तल, जयेन्द्र गंज, ग्वालियर-474009

23.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, जालंधर

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, जालंधर कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, पंजाब , चंडीगढ़ , कोठी सं. 286 डिफेंस कालोनी, जालंधर-144001

24.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कानपुर

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, कानपुर कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, 37/17, वेस्टकोट भवन, दिमाल, कानपुर, उत्तर प्रदेश -208001

25.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्ली और हरियाणा

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्लीऔर हरियाणा कंपनी कार्य मंत्रालय, बी-ब्लॉक, पर्यावरण भवन, सीजीओ कांप्लेक्स, नई दिल्ली-110003

कार्यालय समापक, दिल्ली

26. कार्यालय समापक, दिल्ली दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध ए-2, डब्ल्यू2 , कर्जन रोड, बैरेकस, कस्तूरबा गांधी मार्ग, नईदिल्ली-110001

27 .

कार्यालय समापक, चंडीगढ़

कार्यालय समापक, चंडीगढ़ पंजाब, हरियाणा और हिमाचल प्रदेश उच्चन्यायालय से सहबद्ध एस.सी.ओ. सं. १ द्वितीय तल, सेक्टर-26, चंडीगढ़ -160 019

28.

कार्यालय समापक, जयपुर

कार्यालय समापक, जयपुर राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध बी-75/ए, राजेन्द्रमार्ग , बापू नगर, जयपुर-302015

514 G1 /2006-2 1994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

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

(2)

(3)

29.

कार्यालय समापक, इलाहाबाद

कार्यालय समापक, इलाहाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध 33 , ताशकंत मार्ग , सिविल लाईन्स, इलाहाबाद-211001

30.

कार्यालय समापक, कटक

कार्यालय समापक, कटक, उड़ीसा उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध चलचित्र भवन , द्वितीय तल, बक्सी बाजार, कटक-753001

31.

कार्यालय समापक, कोलकाता

कार्यालय समापक, कोलकाता, कोलकाता उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध १, पुराना पोस्ट आफिस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता-700 001

32.

कार्यालय समापक, पटना

कार्यालय समापक, पटना, पटना उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध मौर्य लोक कांप्लेक्स, ब्लाक- ए, चौथा तल, डाक बंगला रोड, पटना-800001

33:

कार्यालय समापक, हैदराबाद

कार्यालय समापक, हैदराबाद, आन्ध्र प्रदेश, उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध 3-5-398 , प्रथम तल, केन्द्रीय सदन, सुल्तान बाजार कोटी, हैदराबाद-5000195

34.

कार्यालय समापक

कार्यालय समापक, चैन्नई चैन्नई उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध कुरालगाम, ब्लॉक- प्रथम तल, एस्प्लानेड,

चैन्नई-600108

35.

कार्यालय समापक, एर्णाकुलम

कार्यालय समापक, केरल, केरल, उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध कंपनी लॉ भवन, बीएमसीरोड, थिक्काकारा पी . ओ. कोचीन-682021

36.

कार्यालय समापक,

कार्यालय समापक, मंगलौर , कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध चौथा तल , डी एंड एंफ विंग, केन्द्रीय सदन, कोरामंगला,

बंगलौर-560 034

37.

कंपनी रजिस्ट्रार- सह- कार्यालय समापक, जम्मू-कश्मीर

कार्यालय समापक, जम्मू-कश्मीर, जम्मूउच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध बहु प्लाजा, साउथ ब्लॉक, राय हेड कांप्लेक्स, जम्मू-180001 1995 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

(3)

(1)

(2)

38.

कार्यालय समापक, मुंबई

कार्यालय समापक, मुंबई, बम्बई उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध बैंक ऑफ इंडिया भवन, पांचवां तल, महात्मा गांधी रोड, मुम्बई-400023

39.

कार्यालय समापक, अहमदाबाद,

कार्यालय समापक, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध जीवाभाई चैंबर , आश्रम रोड के पीछे , नवरंग पुरा, अहमदाबाद

40.

कार्यालय समापक

कार्यालय समापक, इंदौर, मध्य प्रदेश और छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध प्रथम तल, पुराना सीआईए भवन , जीपीओ कैंपस के सामने, रेसीडेंसी एरिया , इंदौर-452001

41.

कार्यालय समापक, नागपुर

कार्यालय समापक, नागपुर, नागपुर स्थित मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय से सहबद्ध नया सचिवालय भवन, द्वितीय तल, ईस्टविंग , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर-440001

[फा. सं. डी-33016/5/2004 -सा. ]

वाई.एस. मलिक, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF COMPANY AFFAIRS

New Delhi , the 3rd March, 2006

S. O. 910.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition ofAdvertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production , Supply and Distribution) Act , 2003 , the Central Government hereby authorises the officers indicated in column ( 3) of the Table given below to implement the prohibition of smoking in public places and who shall be competent to act under Section 4 of the said Act .

TABLE

Office

Sl . No.

Authorised Person

(1)

(2)

(3)

Director

(Administration-I)

Ministry of Company Affairs , 5th Floor, ' A' Wing ' Dr. R.P. Road, New Delhi - 110001

Regional Director (North)

Regional Director (North) , Ministry of Company Affairs , PDIL Bhawan, A- 14, Sector- I Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida (UP) -201301 .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

(3 )

(2)

(1)

Regional Director ( East)

Regional Director ( East) , Ministry of Company Affairs , Nizam Place, II M.S.O. Building , 2nd Floor , 234/4, Acharya J.C. Bose Road , Kolkata- 700 020

Regional Director (South)

Regional Director (South), Ministry of CompanyAffairs , Shastri Bhawan , 5th and 26 Haddows Road, Chennai Tamilnadu - 600006

Regional Director (West)

Regional Director (West) , Ministry of Company Affairs , Everest 5th floor, 100, Netaji Subhash Road , Mumbai - Maharashtra - 400 002

Registrar of Companies , Hyderabad

Registrar of Companies , Hyderabad Ministry of Company Affairs , 2nd Floor, CPWD Building , Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh - 500195

Registrar of Companies , Patna

Registrar of Companies , Patna , Ministry of Company Affairs , Maurya Lok Complex, 4th Floor, ' A' Block, DakBanglow Road, Patna, Bihar-800001

Registrar of Companies , Pune

Registrar of Companies , Pune, Ministry of Company Affairs , PMT Building, Pune Stock Exchange , 3rd Floor, Deccan Gymakhana , Pune -411004

Registrar of Companies - cum-Office Liquidator Goa

Registrar ofCompanies , Goa, Ministry ofCompany Affairs , PlotNo. 21 , EDC Complex, Patta Panaji , Goa-403001

10.

Registrar of Companies - cum -Office Liquidator Jammu

Registrar of Companies , Jammu, Ministry of Company Affairs , 405 to 40, Bahu Plaza , 4th Floor , Sa. Block, Rai Head Complex, Jamiau- 180012

11.

Registrar of Companies , Eranakulam

Registrar of Companies , Kerala. Ministry of Company Affairs , 1st Floor, Company Law Bhawan, BMC Road, Thrikkakara ( P.O.) Co Kerala -682021 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

(1)

(2)

12. Registrar of Companies , Maharashtra, Ministry of Company Affairs , Everest, 100 Marine Drive, Mumbai, Maharashtra -400002

13. Registrar of Companies , Pondicherry, Ministry of Company Affairs , 35, Elango III Cross Nagar, 1stFloor, Pondicherry - 605011

14. Registrar of Companies , Jaipur, Ministry of Company Affairs , 132, Vijay Nagar , Kartarpura, New Kartarpura Railway Station, Jaipur-302008

15. Registrar of Companies , Kolkata, Ministry of Company Affairs , Nizam Place, II M. S.O. Building , 2nd floor, 234/4, Acharya Jagdish ChandraBose Road, Kolkata -700020

16. Registrar of Companies , Shillong, Ministry of Company Affairs , Morello Building , Ground Floor, Kachari Road, Shillong - 793001

17. Registrar of Companies, Cuttack, Ministry of Company Affairs , Chalachitra Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack, Orissa- 753001

18. Registrar of Companies , Chennai , Ministry of Company Affairs , Shastri Bhawan , 2nd Haddows , Road, Chennai , Tamilnadu - 600006

19. Registrar of Companies , Coimbatore, Ministry of Company Affairs , Coimbatore Stock Exchange Building, 2nd683 , Tricity Road, Singanallar, Coimbatore- 641005

20. Registrar of Companies , Bangalore, "E" Wing, 2nd Floor , Kendriya Sadan, Koramanala, Karnataka -34 Ministry of Company Affairs ,

1997 (3)

Registrar of Companies , Mumbai

Registrar of Companies , Pondicherry

Registrar of Companies , Jaipur

Registrar of Companies , Kolkata

Registrar of Companies , Shillong

Registrar of Companies , Cuttack

Registrar of Companies , Chennai

Registrar of Companies , Coimbatore

Registrar of Companies , Bangalore 1998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

(1)

(2)

21. Registrar of Companies , Ahmedabad , Ministry of Company Affairs , ROC Bhawan, Opp. Rupał Park, NR Ankur Bus Stand, Naranpura , Ahmedabad -380013

22. Registrar of Companies , Gwalior, Ministry of Company Affairs , "A" Block, Sanjay Complex, 3rd Floor, Jayendra Ganj Gwalior-474009

23. Registrar of Companies , Jalandhar, Ministry of Company Affairs , Punjab , Chandigarh , Kothi No. 286, Defence Colony, Jalandhar- 144 001

24. Registrar of Companies , Kanpur, Ministry of CompanyAffairs , 37/17, West Cott Building, TheMall , Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh - 208 001

25. Registrar of Companies , Delhi & Haryana , Ministry of Company Affairs , B -Block, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi .

26. OfficeLiquidator, Delhi , Attached to the High Court of Delhi A2, W2, Curzon Road Barracks , Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001

27. Office Liquidator, Chandigarh, Attached to the High Court of Punjab , Haryana & Himachal Pradesh , S.C.O. No. 9, 2nd Floor, Secort - 26, Chandigarh- 160019

28. Office Liquidator, Jaipur, Attached to the High Court of Rajasthan, B - 75/A, Rajendra Marg, Bapu Nagar , Jaipur-302015

29. Office Liquidator, Allahabad, Attached to the High Court of Uttar Pradesh , 33, Tashkant Marg , Civil Lines , Allahabad - 211001

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

Registrar of Companies , Ahmedabad

Registrar of Companies , Gwalior

Registrar of Companies , Jalandhar

> Registrar of Companies , Kanpur

Registrar of Companies , Delhi & Haryana

Official Liquidator , Delhi

Official Liquidator , Chandigarh

Official Liquidator , Jaipur

Official Liquidator, Allahabad [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1999

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/ फाल्गुन 20, 1927

(1)

(2)

30. Office Liquidator, Cuttack, Attached to the High Court of Orissa, Chalachitra Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Buxi Bazar , Cuttack -753001

31. Office Liquidator, Kolkata, Attached to the High Court of Kolkata , 9 OldPostOffice Street, Kolkata-700 001

32. Office Liquidator, Patna, Attached to the High Court of Patna , Maurya Lok Complex Block -A , 4thFloor, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna-800001

33. Office Liquidator, Hyderabad, Attached to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 3-5-398, 1st Floor, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar Koti , Hyderabad-5000 195

34. Office Liquidator , Chennai , Attached to the High Court of Chennai , Kuralagam, Block - 1 , 1st Floor, Esplanade, Chennai - 600 108

35. Office Liquidator, Kerala, Attached to the High Court of Kerala , Companies Law Bhawan, BMC Road, Thikkakara P.O. Cochine- 682021

36. Office Liquidator, Bangalore, Attached to the High Court of Karnataka , 4th Floor , D& F Wing, Kendirya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034

37. Office Liquidator, J&K, Attached to the High Court of Jammu , Bahu Plaza, South Block, Rai Head Complex, Jammu- 180001

38. Office Liquidator , Mumbai , Attached to the High Court of Bombay, Bank of India Building, 5thFloor Mahatama Gandhi Road , Mumbai -400023

39. Office Liquidator, Ahmedabad, Attached to the High Court of Gujarat, Jivabhai Chamber, Behind Ashram Road, Navrang Pura, Ahmedabad

(3)

OfficialLiquidator, Cuttack

Official Liquidator, Kolkata

Official Liquidator , Patna

Official Liquidator , Hyderabad

ConcernedOfficial Liquidator Chennai

Official Liquidator Ernakulam

Official Liquidator Bangalore

Registrar of Companies - cum-Office Liquidator J&K

Official Liquidator Mumbai

OfficialLiquidator Ahmedabad 2000

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

(2)

(3)

(1 )

40.

Official Liquidator Indore

Office Liquidator, Indore Attached to the High Court of M.P. & Chhattisgarh , 1st Floor, Old CIA Building , Opp . GPO Campus , ResidencyArea, Indore-452001

Official Liquidator Nagpur

41. Office Liquidator, Nagpur Attached to the High Court of Mumbai , AtNagpur, New Secretariat Building, 2nd Floor , East Wing, CivilLines, Nagpur -440001

[F. No. D- 33016/5/2004- Gen . ]

Y.S. MALIK, Jt . Secy .

परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग

मुंबई, 20 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 911.- न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड ( एनपीसीआईएल ) द्वारा , कथित उपक्रमों के संपदा अधिकारी के रूप में नामित अधिकारियों के पदों के पदनाम में परिवर्तन कर दिए जाने के परिणामस्वरूप , सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत दखल से बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( वर्ष 1971 के अधिनियम सं. 40 ) के खंड 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार के परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग के दिनांक 18-02-1991 के एसओ संख्या 6/1 ( 50 )/ 898- पीपी/ 181 , दिनांक 04-09-1996 के एसओ संख्या 1/11 ( 33 ) / 94 - पावर/ 1332 और दिनांक 30-06-2004 के एसओ संख्या 1/11 ( 33 )/94- पावर/510 की अधिसूचनाओं के अधिक्रमण में, केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित सारणी के कालम 2 में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों, जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की श्रेणी के समकक्ष अधिकारी हैं, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है और उक्त अधिकारी सारणी के कालम संख्या 3 में निर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के संबंध में अपने क्षेत्राधिकार के अंतर्गत स्थानीय सीमाओं में उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा या उसके तहत सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा निर्धारित कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे ।

सारणी

क्रम अधिकारी का पदनाम

संख्या

सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियाँ तथा क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीयसीमाएं

(2)

(3)

(1)

1 .

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले, नरोरा परमाणु बिजलीघर, डाकघर नरोरा , वाया- देबई , बुलंदशहर , उत्तर प्रदेश के परिसर (कार्यालय एवं आवासीय )

उप महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसधान) या वरि. प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन ) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) नरोरा परमाणु बिजलीघर, डाकघर - नरोरा , वाया- देबई , बुलंदशहर, उत्तर प्रदेश-202 397

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले , एनपीसीआईएल तारापुर साईट , जिल : ठाणे, महाराष्ट्र राज्य के परिसर ( कार्यालय एवं आवासीय ) अपर महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसधान ) या उप महा प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन) या वरि प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) , एनपीसीआईएल तारापुर, सराइट तारापुर जिला : ठाणे , महाराष्ट्र -401 504.

3. उप महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसधान ) या वरि. प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन ) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) काकरापार परमाणु बिजलीघर, डाकघर, गाँव- मोतीचेर , मांडवी तालुका, जिला : सूरत , गुजरात

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वालेकाकरापार परमाणु बिजलीघर , गाँव- मोतीचेर और राजवाड , मांडवी तालुका में तथा गाँव ऊंचामाला, व्यारा तालुका, जिला सूरत, गुजरात के परिसर ( कार्यालय एवं आवासीय) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2001

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

(2)

(1)

4. अपर महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसधान) या उप महा प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन ) या वरि. प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) या प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन ) , एनपीसीआईएल रावतभाटा साइट, डाक: अणुशक्ति, वाया: कोटा, राजस्थान-323 303 5. उप महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसधान ) या वरि. प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) कुंडनकुलम परमाणु विद्युत परियोजना, डाक कुडनकुलम, तालुका: राधापुरम, जिला: तिरुनेलवेली, तमिलनाडु-627 106 6. उप महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) या वरि. प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन ) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) कैगा उत्पादन केंद्र, डाक: कैगा कारवार जिला उत्तर कन्नडा, तालुका: कर्नाटक-581 301

7. उप महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) या वरि. प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) मद्रास परमाणु बिजलीघर, डाक कलपाक्कम , जिला: कांची पुरम, तमिलनाडु-603 102

अपर महा प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन) या उप महा प्रबंधक (मानव संसाधन ) या वरि. प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) या प्रबंधक ( मानव संसाधन ) , न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, नाभिकीय ऊर्जा भवन/विक्रम सारा भाई भवन , अणु शक्ति नगर मुंबई -400 094 .

(3)

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले , एनपीसीआईएल रावतभाटा राजस्थान राज्य के परिसर ( कार्यालय एवं आवासीय )

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले कुडनकुलम परमाणु विद्युत परियोजना, डाक: कुडनकुलम, तालुका राधापुरम, जिला तिरुनेलवेली, तमिलनाडु के परिसर ( कार्यालय एवं आवासीय)

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले कैगा बिजली उत्पादन केंद्र 1 और 2 , तथा कैगा बिजली उत्पादन केंद्र 3 और 4 , गाँव मलापुर, कैगा, कारवार, जिला: उत्तर कन्नडा, कर्नाटक के परिसर ( कार्यालय एवं आवासीय ) न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले मद्रास परमाणु बिजलीघर इकाई -1 , और 2 , कलपाक्कम , जिला कांचीपुरम, तमिलनाडु के परिसर (कार्यालय एवं आवासीय )

न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व अथवा उनके प्रबंधन वाले, नाभिकीय ऊर्जा भवन, एनपीसीआईएल गेस्ट हाउस , अणुशक्ति नगर, वर्ल्ड ट्रेड सेंटर कार्यालय , बेलापुर भवन कार्यालय और भारत में विभिन्न जगहों पर स्थित संपर्क कार्यालय, गुणवत्ता निगरानी कार्यालय, रजिस्टर्ड कार्यालय इत्यादि के परिसर ( कार्यालय एवं आवासीय)

[सं. 1/11 (33 )94 - पावर/ 151 ]

के. रवीन्द्रन , उप सचिव

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Mumbai , the 20th February, 2006

S.O. 911. Consequent on the change effected by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) in the designations of posts in respect of the officers appointed as Estate Officers in the said Undertaking, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act , 1971 ( Act No. 40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notifications of the Govt . of India in the Department of Atomic Energy, S.O. No. 6/ 1(50)/898 - PP/ 181 dated 18-02-1991 , S.O. No. 1 / 11 / ( 33 )/94 - Power/ 1332 dated the 4th September , 1996 and S.O. No. 1/ 11 (33 )/94 - Power/510 dated 30-06-2004 , the Central Government hereby appoints the following Officers mentioned in column 2 of the Table below being Officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officers of the Government of India . to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect ofthe public premises specified in column 3 of the said Table .

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Sl. No.

(1)

(2)

1. Dy Gen. Manager ( HR ) or Sr. Manager (HR) orManager (HR) . Narora Atomic Power Station, P.O. Narora, Via: Debai , Bulandshahr, UttarPradesh-202397 .

514 G1 /2006-3

Categories of the Public premises & local limits ofjurisdiction

(3)

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at Narora Atomic Power Station , P.O. Narora, via: Debai , Bulandshahr. Uttar Pradesh .

2002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 HALGUNA 20 , 1927

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

(1)

(5)

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the raanagement of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at NPCIL Tarapur Site . Maharashira State.

Additional General Manager ( HR) , or Dy. Gen. Manager ( HR) or Sr. Manager (HR) or Manager ( HR) , NPCIL Tarapur Site , Tarapur, Dist: Thane , Maharashtra - 401 504 .

3. Dy Gen. Manager (HR ) or Sr. Manager (HR) orManager ( HR ) , Kakrapar Atomic Power Station , Village-Moticher, Mandvi Taluka, Dist. Surat , Gujarat .

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of Inde Limted at kakrapar Atomic Power Station , in Vibage: Moticher Nanicher and Rajwad in the Mandvi Tauka and village Unchamala, Vara Taluka, Dist . Surat . Gujarat.

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at NPCIL Rawatbhata Rajasthan Statc .

4. General Manager ( HR ) , or Dy. Gen. Manager (HR) or Sr. Manager ( HR) or Manager (HR). NPCIL Rawatbhata Site , P.O. Anushakti , Via, Kota, Rajasthan -323 303 .

5. Dy. General Manager (HR ) , or Sr. Gen. Manager (HR) or Dy . Manager (HR) Kundankulam Nuclear Power Project, P.O. Kudankulam, Taluk: Radhapuram , District: Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu -627106 .

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, P.O. Kugankulam , Taluk : Radhapuram, District: Tirunelveli . Tamil Nadu.

6. Additional General Manager ( HR) , or Sr. Manager ( HR ) or Dy . Manager ( HR) Kaiga Generating Station, P.O. Kaiga, Karwar, Uttara kannada District, Karnataka -581301 .

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at Kaiga Generating Station- 1 &2 and Kaiga Project - 3 & 4, Village Mallapur, Kaiga, Karwar in Uttara Kannada District of Karnataka .

7. Additional General Manager ( HR) , or Sr. Manager (HR) or Dy. Manager (HR) Madras Atomic Power Station , P.O. Kalpakkam , Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu -603 102.

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the managementement of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at Madras Atomic Power Stalion Units - 1 & 2 in Kalpakkaın , Kancheepuram District . Tanul Nadu.

8. Additional Geral Manager ( HR) , or Dy. Gen. Manager (HR) or Sr. Manager ( HR ) or Manager (HR) Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, Nabhikiya Urja Bhawan/Vikram Sarabhai Bhawan . Anushakti Nagar , Mumbai -400 094.

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited at its Headquarters Office in Mumbai i.c. Nabhikiya Urja Bhawan , NPCIL Guest House , Anushakti Nagar, World Trade Centre Office , Belapur Bhawan Office and Liaison Officers, Quality Surveillance Offices . Registered Office etc. located at various places in India.

[No. 1/11 (33)/94-Power/ 151 ]

K. RAVEENDRAN , Dy. Secy.

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड)

नईदिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ . 912.-रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में उत्तर रेलवे के मुरादाबाद मंडल के सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर कार्यालय , सीतापुर शहर को, जहां 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

[सं. हिंदी-2006/रा.भा. 1/12/1 ]

कृष्णा शर्मा, संयुक्त निदेशक, राजभाषा, रेलवे बोर्ड 2003 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RailwayBoard)

New Delhi , the 27th February, 2006

S.O. 912. Ministry of Railways (Railway Board ) , in pursuance of Sub - rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules , 1976 (use for the official purposes ofthe Union ) hereby, notify the Assistant Divisional Engineer Office, Sitapur City of Muradabad Division of Northern Railway, where more than 80% Officers /Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[No.Hindi -2006/ O.L . 1/12/1 ]

KRISHNA SHARMA, Director (O.L.) Railway Board

नागालैंड सरकार

(उद्योग एवं व्यापार विभाग )

कोहिमा, 22 नवम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 913.-दिनांक 21-12-1977 के भारतीय राजपत्र के द्वितीय भाग के तृतीय हिस्से में प्रकाशित प्रदत्त शक्तियों का उपभोग करते हुये श्री मोअंगवती अयर, निवासीय उपायुक्त नागालैंड हाऊस , नई दिल्ली जो नागालैंड सरकार के गजेटेड अधिकारी है, को उपर्युक्त कहे गये कानून के उद्देश्य के लिए परिसम्पत्ति अधिकारी बनाया जाता है जो अपने स्थानीय अधिकार क्षेत्र के अन्तर्गत उपर्युक्त कानून के तहत अपनी शक्तियों का उपयोग एवं सेवाओं का निर्वाह निम्नलिखित सारणी के द्वितीय कालम में बताये गये सरकारी भवनों में करेंगे-

सारणी

अधिकारी का पद

राजकीय भवनों की श्रेणी एवं स्थानीय सीमायें

(1)

(2)

नागालैंड हाऊस के उपनिवासीय अधिकारी

नागालैंड सेल्स एम्पोरियम , बाबा खड्गसिंह मार्ग, नई दिल्ली

[सं. आई.डी.बी./एच.डी. - 31/85]

अभिषेक सिंह, अतिरिक्त सचिव , नागालैंड सरकार

GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND

(Industries and Commerce Department )

Kohima, the 22nd November, 2005

S.O. 913.- In exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government through a Gazette Notification dated 21-12-1997, Published in Extraordinary, Part - II , Section 3 , Sub -section ( ii ) of Gazette of India on 28-11-1997 , the Government ofNagaland hereby appoints Shri Maongwati Aier , the Deputy Residential Commissioner , Nagaland House , New Delhi being Gazetted Officer of the Government of Nagaland to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act within the local limits ofhis jurisdiction in respect of the Public Premises specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said Table

TABLE

Category ofPublic Premises and local limits ofjurisdiction Designation of the Officer

(1)

(2)

Nagaland Sales Emporium, Baba Kharak Singh Marg , New Delhi Deputy Residential Commissioner , Nagaland House

[No. IDB/HD - 31/85]

ABHISHEK SINGH, Addl . Secy, to the Govt . of Nagaland 2004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

( दन्त शिक्षा अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 914.- दन्त चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् के साथ परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्वारा अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

2. एन.टी.आर. यूनीवर्सिटी ऑफ हैल्थ साइंसेज, विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची में भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 50 के सामने कालम 2 एवं 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां रखी जाएं: -

(2)

(1)

" ΙΙΙ . नारायण डेंटल कालेज , नेल्लोर बैचलर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी (जब 19-11-2005 या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) IV. श्री साई कालेज ऑफ डेंटल साइंसेज, विकाराबाद , आन्ध्रप्रदेश

बैचलर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी ( जब 19-11-2005 या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

V सिबर इन्स्टिट्यूट ऑफ डेंटल साइंसेज, गुंटूर बैचलर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी ( जब 21-11-2005 या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

(3)

बीडीएस , एल.टी.आर. , यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हैल्थ साइंसेज विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश

बीडीएस, एन.टी.आर. , यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हैल्थ साइंसेज विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश

बीडीएस, एन.टी.आर. , यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हैल्थ साइंसेज विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश । "

[सं. वी-12017/42/ 2000- पीएमएस (डी. ई ) ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

(DENTAL EDUCATION SECTION)

New Delhi , the 24th February , 2006

S.O. 914. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

2. Under the existing entries of columns 2 and 3 against Serial No. 50, in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to N.T.R. University of Health Sicences , Vijagawada , A.P. , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:

"III . Narayana Dental College, Nellore Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 19-11-2005) IV. Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery , Vikarabad (A.P. )

Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 19-11-2005) V Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences , Guntur Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 21-11-2005) BDS, N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada, A.P.

BDS , N.T.R. University ofHealth Sciences , Vijayawada, A.P.

BDS , N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada, A.P. "

[No. V- 12017/42/ 2000- PMS ( DE) ]

A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

2005 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

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

नई दिल्ली, 1 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 915.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग अभियंता प्रशिक्षण संस्थान , नौएडा उत्तर प्रदेश को जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. ई . 11013/3/2006- हिन्दी] सरोज कुमार दास, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Department of Road Transport and Highways)

New Delhi , 1st March , 2006

S.O. 915.-In pursuance of sub -rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the National Institute for Training of Highway Engineers under the Administrative Control of the Deptt . of Road Transport & Highways , 80% staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi.

[No. F. 11013 /3/2006-Hindi ] SAROJ KUMAR DASH, Jt . Secy.

मंत्रालय/डाक विभाग

वडोदरा , 1 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 916.- जबकि केन्द्रिय सरकार का अभिप्राय है कि श्री पी.एस. चौधरी डाक सहायक बारडोली मुख्य डाकघर के विरुद्ध अनुशासनिक कार्यवाही के मामले में विभागीय जांच करने हेतु गवाह/साक्षी बुलाना जरूरी हैं ।

1. श्री हिमतशंकर मराठे ।

नहेरूनगर, बाबेनजीन , बारडोली ।

2. श्री रसिकभाई रेवाभाइ पटेल

सुगरकोलोनी, बारडोली ।

3. श्री रविन्द्रसिंह गुमानसिंह चौहान

मु. पांडा, पोस्ट: रायम, वरड, जिला : सुरत

विभागीय जांच ( साक्षी उपस्थिति अमलीकरण और दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत ) नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के अधिनियम 1972 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार श्री एन. डी. जोशी निवृत्त ए पी एम जी ( स्टाफ ) , मुख्य डाक अध्यक्ष का कार्यालय, अहदाबाद को श्री पी. एस. चौधरी डाक सहायक, बारडोली मुख्य डाकघर ( वर्ग -3 ) के संबंध में उक्त धारा 5 में दर्शायी गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने हेतु जांच अधिकारी के रूप में प्राधिकृत किया जाता है ।

[सं. एसटीए/ 11 - विविध/पीसीएस ]

ए. के. ए. जोशी , पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल , वडोदरा क्षेत्र

MINISTRY/DEPARTMENT OF POSTS

Vadodara, the 1st March, 2006

S. O. 916. Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that for the purpose of the departmental inquiry relating to Shri P.S. Chaudhry , P.A. Bardoli HỔ , it is necessary to summon as witnesses .

1. Shri Himat Shankar Marathe

Nehrunagar, Baden Jin , Bardoli .

2. Shri Rasikbhai Revabhai Patel

Sugar Colony, Bardoli

3. Shri Ravindrasinh Gumansinh Chauhan At. Panda, Post: Rayam , Varad Dist .: Surat .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of witnesses and production ofdocuments ) Act 1972 ( 18 of 1972) the Central Govemment hereby authorizes Shri N.D. Joshi , retired APMG ( Staff) O/O Chief Postmaster General Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad as the inquiring authority to 2006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] exercise the power specified in section 5 of the said Act in relation to Shri P.S. Chaudhry Postal Assistant Bardoli HO , a Group " C" Central Government Servant.

[No. STA/ 11 - Misc . /PSC]

A.K. A. JOSHI , Postmaster General, Vadodara Region उपभोक्तामामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 917.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

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

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

06फरवरी 2006

1, दिसम्बर 2005

1. आई एस 2148: 2004/आईईसी 60079-1 (2001 ) विस्फोटी गैस पर्यावरणों के लिए बिजली के उपकरण- ज्वालासह अवरण " डी " । तीसरा पुनरीक्षण ।

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

[संदर्भ : ईटी 22/टी -45 ]

पी.के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा.ए फ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 24th February , 2006

S. O. 917. In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No.

No. & year of the Amendment

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1, December 2005 06 February 2006 1. IS 2148 : 2004 Electrical Apparatus for Explosive GasAtmospheres- Flameproof Enclosures ' d '

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

[Ref.: ET 22/T- 45]

P.K. MUKHERJEE, Sc . F & Head ( Electro Technical) 2007 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 24 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 918.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

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

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

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

06 फरवरी 2006 1. आई एस 2148: 2004/ आईईसी 60079-1 ( 2001 ) विस्फोटी गैस पर्यावरणों के लिए बिजली के उपकरण- ज्वालासह अवराग " डी " । ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण ) ।

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

[ईटी22/टी-45 ]

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

New Delhi , the 24th February, 2006

S. O. 918. 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 amendmentto the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

SI . No. & Year of the Indian Standards

No. & year of the Amendment

No.

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

06 February 2006 1. IS2148 : 2004/IEC 60079-1 ( 2001 ) Electrical Apparatus for Explosive Gas Atmospheres- FlameproofEnclosures "d" ( Third Revision )

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

[ET 22/T- 45 ]

P.K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist . F & Head ( Electro Technical )

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 919.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( को) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

2008

[ PART II -- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

अनुसूची

क्रम. संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

1. 4859 1968

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

(3)

(4)

31 दिसम्बर 2005 3, दिसम्बर 2005

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

[सीईडी/राजपत्र] जगदीश चन्द्र अरोड़ा वैज्ञानिक " ई " व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2006

S. O. 919. 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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards St. No.

(1) (2)

1. 4859 : 1968

No. & year ofthe Amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

3 December , 2005 31 December, 2005 Copies ofthis Standerd is available for sale with the Breau 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.

[CED/Gazette] J.C. ARORA , Scientist E & Head (Civil Engg .)

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 920.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उपविनियमन ( 6 ) के तहत् यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि निम्नलिखित ब्यौरे वाले लाइसेन्स, उनके सामने दी गई तारीखों से, रद्द किए जाते हैं ।

अनुसूची

क्रम. लाइसेन्स नम्बर लाइसेन्स वाले का नाम/पता संख्या

1. 6484078

जगहस इंजीनियरिंग एक्वीपमेंट्स, नं./17/1 , पलनियप्पा-चेट्टियार स्ट्रीट, छटा क्रास, तण्णीर पन्दल , पीलमेडु, कोयम्बत्तूर -641004

रद्द करने कीतारीख समयबाधित लाइसेन्स द्वारा आवृत्त वस्तु/प्रक्रिया के साथ संगत भारतीय मानक

2005-12-08 निमज्जनीय पंपसेट भामा : 8034 : 2002

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

2009

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

New Delhi, the 28th February , 2006

S. O. 920.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licence particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each .

SCHEDULE

Licence

Name andAddress of the Licensee Sl. No. No.

1. 6484078

Jaghas Engg . Equipments, Unit -III, 17/1 , Pallaniappa Chettiar Street, 6th Cross, Thanneer Pandhal , Peelamedu, Coimbatore- 641004

Date of cancellation Article/Process with

relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence expired

2005-12-08

Submersible Pumpsets

IS8034:2002

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

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 921.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम (4 ) के उप नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेन्सों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस सं. चालू तिथि

क्रम सं.

1 2

27-12-2005

1. 8684504

मै. शिवम इण्डस्ट्रीज,

जी-1-80-81 व 82 , रीको इण्ड. ऐरिया ,

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक ब संबंधित भारतीय मानक

प्लाईवुड फॉर जर्नल परपज

303 : 1989

नोहर, हनुमानगढ

02-12-2005

2. 8681292

मै. विनायक मेन्यूट्रेड प्रा.लि. 31 , इण्ड. ऐरिया , झोटवाडा, जयपुर

02-12-2005

8681191

मैं. जे . के. एन्टरप्राइजेज ,

जी-501 , रोड नं. 12 , वी. के. आई. ऐरिया, जयपुर

08-12-2005

4. 8682395

मै. रिधिज्वैल,

फिनाइल

1061: 1997

स्टील दरवाजा, खिड़की और

रोशनदान

1038 : 1983

हालमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वेलरी

1417 : 1999

सी-6 , जी. टी. बाजार, गौरव टावर,

मालविया नगर, जयपुर

08-12-2005

5. 8682496

मैं. चेतन उद्योग,

पोलिस्टर और पोलीप्रोपलीन

8783 (भाग -4 ): 1995

जी-513, रोड नं. १ ए, वी. के. आई.

ऐरिया, जयपुर

22-12-2005

6. 8683805

मै. वर्धमान ज्वैलर्स,

शॉप नं. 04, आनन्दगंगा अपार्टमेन्ट, 3 बी रोड, सरदारपुरा , जोधपुर

15-12-2005

7. 8683401

मै. फाइन केबल और कण्डेक्टर्स,

हालमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वेलरी

1417:1999

एसीएसआर

398( भाग-2 ): 1996

फ- 221 , रीको इण्ड, ऐरिया, बगरू

विस्तार, बगरू, जयपुर

514 G1/ 2006-4 2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006

30-12-2005

8. 8685809

मै . कप कब इंडिया लि. , फ- 1233 , धटल इण्ड. ऐरिया, भीवाडी-301019 जिला अलवर

30-12-2005

9. 8685910

मै . कप कब इंडिया लि. , फ़- 1233 , धटल इण्ड. ऐरिया, भीवाडी- 301019 जिला अलवर

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

FHALGUNA 20, 1927

पीवी सी इन्सूलेटेड केबल 694:1990

पीवीसी( एचडी ) इन्सूलेटेड केबल 1554: ( भाग -1)

[संदर्भ सी एम डी-1/13: 11 ] एस. एम. भाटिया , उप महानिदेशक( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2006

S. O. 921.- In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification Regulation, 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , herby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedules .

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Licensee

Operative Date

Sl . No.

Licence No. (CM/L)

27-12-2005

1. 8684504

M/s Shivam Industries , G-I -80-81 & 82 , RIICO Industrial Area, Nohar, Hanumangarh

2-12-2005

2. 8681292

M/s Vinayak Manutrade Pvt . Ltd. , 31 , Industrial Area, Jhotwara , Jaipur 3. 8681191

2-12-2005

M/ s J.K. Enterprises G-501 , Road No. 12 , V.K.I. Area , Jaipur

4. 8682395

8-12-2005

M/s Riddhi Jewel , C-6G.T. Bazar GauravTower, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur- 12

8-12-2005

5. 8682496

M/ sChetan Udyog , G-513 , Road No.9A , V.K.I. Area, Jaipur

6. 8683805

22-12-2005

15-12-2005

7. 8683401

8. 8685809

30-12-2005

M/ s Cap Cab India Ltd,, F - 1233 , Ghatal Industrial Area, Bhiwadi - 301019 (Raj .)

9. 8685910

-do-

Article/Process Covercal by the licences and the relevant

I.S.: Designation

Plywood for General Purpose IS:303:1989

Disinfectant Fluid IS: 1061: 1997

Steel Doors windows and ventilators IS: 1038: 1983

Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery IS: 1417: 1999

Polyester & Polypropylene IS:8783 (Pt.4) : 1995

Hallmarking of Goldjewellery IS: 1417: 1999

M/ sVardhaman Jewellers , Shop No.04, Anandganga Apartment, 3rd B Road, Sardarpura , Jodhpur

ACSR IS: 398 (Pt.2) : 1996

M/ s Fine Cable & Conductors , F - 221 , RIICO Industrial Area , Bagru (Extn) ,Jaipur

PVC Insulated Cable IS:694: 1990

PVC ( HD) Insulated Cable is : 1554( Pt - 1 )

[Ref: CMD.1 / 13 : 11 ] S.M. BHATIA , Dy . Director General ( Marks ) 2011 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 922.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन, 1988 के विनियमन 5 के तहत एतदद्वारा निम्नलिखित अनुसूची में दिए ब्यौरों के लाइसेंस की मंजूरी अधिसूचित करता है ।

अनुसूची

पार्टी का नाम/पता

मानक की उपाधि

लाइसेन्स संख्या लागूअवधि

भामा संख्या भाग/खण्ड/वर्ष क्रम सं.

(6)

(5)

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

भामा : 4985 : 2000 4-12-2006

1. 6536980

पेय जल आपूर्तिके लिए यूपीविसी पाइप्स

पैसर्स मोणिका पाइप्स, नं./7/110- । , सरवणामपटटी, कीर्तनम, कोयम्बतूर- 641 035

2. 6540163

23-12-2005

भाना: 2083: 1993

बिजली के पानी गर्म करने के भंडारन फिल्म के स्थिर हीवर

मैसर्स वीसर इलेक्ट्रीकल्स, नं./1/423 , बालदमहानुषम स्ट्रीट, चिन्नियमपालन, कोयम्बसूर - 641062.

27-12-2005

3. 6540769

भामा : 1417 : 1999

स्वर्ष वस्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ

मैसर्स श्री कुमरण, तंग मालिगै नं. /85 - ए, आ.के. वी. रोड, ईसेड़ -638001

आभूषण तथा हस्तकारी शुद्धता तथा मोहरांकन

स्वर्ण वस्वर्ण

27-12-2005

4. 6540971

मैसर्स श्री कुमरन तंग मालिगै,

भामा : 1417: 1999

नं. 555-557,

ओच्पनकारा स्ट्रीट,

ईरोड़ -641 001

मिश्र धातुएँ आभूषण तथा हस्तकारी सुद्धता तथा मोहरांकन

29-12-2005

5. 6541367

भामा: 8472: 1998

साफ ठन्डे पानी केलिए उपकेन्द्रीय पुनरुत्पादक पंप्स

मैसर्स अक्षया इन्जीनियरिंग, नं./1454, तडागम रोड, जी.सी. टी . पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641013.

भामा: 12225 : 1997 29-12-2005

उपकेन्द्रीय जेट पंप

6. 6541973

मैसर्स हाईपिट इंजीनियरिंग, न. 1 - ए, शक्ति नगर, लक्ष्मीजंग पुरम, पीलमेडू, कोयम्बतूर -641 004

भामा : 9079 : 2002 29-12-2005

7. 6542066

कृषि तथा जल आपूर्ति के लिए साफ ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प्स

मैसर्स हाईपिट इंजीनियरिंग, न. 1 - ए, शक्ति नगर, लक्ष्मी नगर पुरम, पीलमेडू, कोयम्बत्तूर -641004

निमज्ञ्जनीय पंपसेट .

भामा: 8034 : 2002 30-12-2005

8. 6542268

मैसर्स अस्कर पप्प प्रोडेक्ट्स, नं. 40 - ए, नल्ला तण्पीर तोट्टम, गोल्डविन्स, सिविल एयरोड्रोम (पोस्ट) , कोयम्बतूर-641 014

[संदर्भ: सीएमडी-1/13 : 11 ]

एस.एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 2012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 28th February , 2006

S. O. 922-In Pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regula- tion , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular of which are given in the following schedule .

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

Sl . Licence No. No.

Operative Date

IS No. Part/ Sec. Year

Name and Address (Factory)

ofthe Party

04-12-2006

1. 6536980

IS4985 : 2000

UPVC pipes for potable

Water supplies

M/ s Monica Pipes , 7/110-1 , Saravanampatti Road , Keeranatham, Coimbatore- 641 035

2. 6540163

23-12-2005

IS 2083 : 1993

Stationary storage type electric water heaters

M/ sVeesar Electricals

1/423 , Baladhandayutham

Street , Chinniyampalayam,

Coimbatore-641062

27-12-2005

3. 6540769

IS 1417 : 1999

Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artifacts- fineness andmarking

M/ sSree Kumaran Thanga Maligai 85 -A , R.K.V. Road Erode- 638001

27-12-2005

4. 6540971

IS 1417 : 1999

Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness andmarking

M/ s Sree Kumaran Thanga Maligai 555-557 , Oppanakara Street , Coimbatore- 641001

5. 6541367

29-12-2005

IS 8472 : 1998

pumps for clear , cold water Centrifugal regenerative

M/ s Akshaya Engineering 1454, Thadagam Road Gct Post , Coimbatore-641 013

6. 6541973

29-12-2005

IS 12225 : 1997

Centrifugaljet pump

M/ sHifit Engineering, 1 -A, Sakthi Nagar , Lakshmi Puram, Peelamedu , Coimbatore-641004

29-12-20005

7. 6542066

IS 9079 : 2002

M/sHifit Engineering , 1 -A, Sakthi Nagar , Lakshmi Puram, Peelamedu , Coimbatore- 641004

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

8. 6542268

30-12-2005

IS 8034: 2002

Submersible Pumpsets

M/ s Askhar Pump Products , 40 -A, Nalla Thanner Thottam , Goldwins , Civil Aerodrome ( PO) , Coimbatore-641014

[Ref: CMD.1/ 13 : 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 1 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 923.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : - 2013 [भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

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

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हों, की संख्या औरवर्ष

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

जनवरी 2006

कुछ नहीं

1. IS 5753 : 2006 अल्फा- एमाइल सिनैमिक एल्डीहाइड- विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

जनवरी 2006

कुछ नहीं

2. IS 15651 (Part 2) : 2006 प्राकृतिक गैस- कार्ल फिशर पद्धति द्वारा जल ज्ञात करना भाग 2 अनुमापन विधि

जनवरी 2006

कुछ नहीं

3. IS 3858 : 2006 बैन्जाइल एसिंटेट- विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ: पीसीडी जी/7 ( गजट ) ]

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

New Delhi , the 1st March, 2006

S. O. 923. 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

No. & Year ofthe Indian

Date of Established Sl. No. & Year and title ofthe No. Indian Standards Established

Standards , if any , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

January 2006

None

1. IS 5753 : 2006 Alpha -Amyl cinnamic aldehyde Specification ( third revision)

None

January 2006 2. IS 15641 (Part 2): 2006 Natural gas- Determination of water by the Karl Fischer Method Part 2 Titration procedure

None

January 2006 3. IS 3858 : 2006 Benzyl acetate-Specification (third revision)

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

[ Ref.: PCD G/ 7 ( Gazette) ]

Dr. D. K. CHAUDHURI , Sc. - F & Head (PCD) 2014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 1 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 924.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 6 के उपविनियम 3 के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये उत्पादों की मुहरांकन शुल्क अधिसूचित करता है :-

अनुसूची भाग

वर्ष

उत्पाद अनु.

इकाई भारतीय मानक सं.

8382

1977

एक अद्द

चिकित्सा गैस सिलिंडरों के साथ प्रयुक्त पूर्व नियोजित रेग्युलेटर

9271

0 2004

एक टन

फार्म जल निकास के लिए प्लास्टिक पाइप 0

13362

0 1992 वस्त्रादि- एस्बेस्टॉस धागा 100 कि.ग्रा.

3149

0 1994

100 अद्द

घरेलूउपयोग के लिए

इनेमिल बर्तन 3

9281

0 1981 इलैक्ट्रॉनिक तोल तंत्र एक अद्द

10508

0 1983

1 एमटी

फासफोरिक एसिड, खाद्य ग्रेड

0 2004

13958

सामान्य कार्यों के लिए बॉस का चटाई बोर्ड 0

15391

0 2003 अतप्त बेल्लित गैर- 1 एमटी

दिशात्मक विद्युत इस्पात कीचद्दर एवं पत्ती- अर्ध-प्रकृमित प्ररूप 0

15573

0 2005

1 एमटी

पोलिएल्युमीनियम क्लोराइड 296

0 1986 सोडियम कार्बोनेट निर्जलीय एक टन

1381

0 2003

एक अद्द

प्रयोगशाला काँच सामान- लघु ग्रीवाक्वथन फ्लास्क 0

2155

0 1982

1 एमटी

तप्त क्लोजिंग के लिए ( 6 से 16 मिमी व्यास ) अतप्त फोर्जित ठोस स्टील रिवेट 0

2619

0 1993 काँच के बीकर

एक अद्द

11005

0 1984

1 अद्द

विद्युत उपस्करके लिए धूलबंद ज्वलनसह खोल 0

12510

0 1988

एक अद्द

दीवार की घड़ी ( बैटरी से चलने वाली)

प्रचालन न्यूनतम मुहरांकन शुल्क इकाई दर

तिथि छोटे पैमाने पर

बड़े पैमाने पर

1.5

33000

26000

20050810 65000

57000

20050810

33000

26000

20050810 33000

26000

20050926 49000

41000

20050926

33000

26000

20050926 32000

0.5

20050926

एक वर्गमीटर 39000

39000

32000

20050926 29000

36000

20050926 33000

26000

20051128 24000

30000

0.2

20051128 26000

33000

20051128 33000

26000

20051128

0.16

52000

60000

20051128 45000

38000

20051128

0.13

[संदर्भ: सीएमडी-1 /13 : 10 ] एस. एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक( मुहर ) 2015 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 1st March , 2006

S. O. 924. In pursuance of sub - regulation (3 ) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Marking for the products given in the Schedule :

SCHEDULE

Year

Product

Unit

IS.No. PT. Sec.

Min.Marking Fee

Enforcement Date

Unit Rate

Small Scale

Large Scale

1.5 20050810

33000 26000

8382

0 1977

1 Piece

Pressure Regulators , Pre-set usedwith Medical Gas Cylinders

80 0

65000 57000

20050810 0 2004

1Tonne

9271

PVC Single Wall Corrugated Pipes for Drainage

14 20050810 0

26000

33000

0 1992

13362

100Kg.

Asbestos Yarn- Textiles

26000

6 20050926 0

3149

0 1994

100 Pieces 33000

Enamelware for Home use

4()

20050926 3

41000

1 Piece 49000

9281

0 1981 Electronic Weighing System

20050926

33000 26000

10508

0 1983

1MT

Phosphoric Acid, Food Grade

20050926

39008

0.5

32000

0 2004

13958 0

1 Sq . Μ .

Bamboo Mat Boards

39000

32000

20050926

1 MT

0 2003

15391

ColdRolled Non- oriented Electrical Steel sheet & Strip-semi Processed Type

36000

29000

20050926 0

0 2005

1MT

15573

Polyaluminium Chloride

70 20051128 0

1 Tonne 33000 26000

296

0 1986 :Sdoium Carbonate , Anhydrous

30000

24000

20051128

0.2 0 2003

1381

1 Piece

LaboratoryGlassware NarrowNecked Boiling Flasks

20051128

33000

26000

30 2155

() 1982

Cold Forged Solid Steel 1 Rivets for Hot Closing (6to 16 mm Dia) type

0,16

26000

1Piece 33000

24051128 2619

0 1993 Glass Beakers

60000

52000

15 20051128

1Piece

(0 1984

11005

()

Dust-tight Ignition Proof Enclosures of Electrical Equipment

20051128

1Piece

45000

0.13

38000

12510

()

0 1988 Wall Clocks (Battery Operated)

[Ref: CMD- 1/13 : 10]

S. M. BHATIA , Dy. Director General (Marks) 2016

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 925.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक (कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

क्रम. संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 1342: 2002 तेल दाब स्टोव विशिष्टि (छठा पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(3)

(4)

1 फरवरी 2006

संशोधन नं. 1 , जनवरी 2006

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

[संदर्भ: एम. ई. डी./जी-2 : 1 ] सी. के. वेदा, वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 2ndMarch, 2006

S.O. 925. 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 has been issued :

SCHEDULE

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

(1) (2)

1. IS 1342 : 2002 Oil pressure stoves - Specificaiton (SixthRevision)

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

1 February 2006 Amendment No. 1 , January 2006

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

[ Ref.: MED/G- 2 : 1 ] C. K. VEDA , Scientist ' F' & Head ( Mechanical Engg. )

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 926.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

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

(1)

(2)

1. आईएस 15637 : 2006 द्रवीय पेट्रोलियम गैस के लिए 0.5 लिटर से 250 लिटर की जलक्षमता के सिलिंडर की विशिष्टि

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

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

(3)

(4)

28फरवरी 2006 2017 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगड़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[संदर्भ : एम. ई. डी./जी-2 : 1 ]

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

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2006

S. O. 926. In pursuance ofclause ( 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. and year of the No. Indian Standards Established

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

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

28 February 2006 1. IS 15637 : 2006 Welded Stainless Steel cylinder for liquefied petroleum gases ( LPG) from 0.5 litre to 250 litre water capacity-Specification

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

[Ref.: MED/G-2: 1 ]

C. K. VEDA , Scientist F & Head (Mechanical Engg . )

नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 927.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि क्रम. संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

30सितम्बर 2005 1 . आई एस 2960 :1964 जिल्दसाजी के चमड़े की विशिष्टि संशोधन संख्या 2 , सितम्बर 2005

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 17/ आई एस 2960 ]

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

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2006

S. O. 927. 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 has been issued :

514 G1 /2006-5 2018

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MARCH 11. 2005/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

SCHEDULE

No. & year of the Indian Standards

No. and year ofthe amendment

SI . No.

Date from which the amendment shallLave effect

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30 September, 2005 1. IS 2960 : 1964 Specificaiton for Bookbinding Leather

Amendment No. 2 , September2005

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

[Ref.: CHD 17/18 2900

Dr. U. C. SRIVASTAVA , Scientist-E, Director & Head (Chemical ) नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 928.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

क्रम. संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

30जून, 2005

संशोधन संख्या 1 ,

जून, 2005

1. आई एस 4396 : 1981-विस्फोटक और आतिशबाजी हेतु संघटनों के लिए बेरियम नाइट्रेट की विशिष्टि ( प्रथम पुनरीक्षण)

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

[ संदर्भ : सीएचडी 26/ आई एस 4396 }

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

New Delhi , the 2nd March , 2006

S. O. 928.-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 has been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. & year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of the amendment

SI . No.

Date front which the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

30.June, 2005

Amendment No. 1 , June 2005

1. IS 4396 : 1981- Specification for Barium Nitrate for Explosive and Pyrotechnic compositions (First 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 .

[Ref.: CHD 26/1S 4396 ]

Dr. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist-E, Director & Head (Chemical) 2019 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/ फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 929.- 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

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

क्रम. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की

संख्या संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानकअथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

30 सितम्बर, 2005 1. आईएस 309 : 2005 संपीड़ित आक्सीजन गैस- विशिष्टि (चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 6/आई एस 309 ]

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

NewDelhi , the 2nd March, 2006

S. O. 929. 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 ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

No. & year of the Indian

Sl. No. & year of the

Dateof Established No. Indian Standards Established

Standards , if any Superseded by theNew Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

30 September, 2005 1. IS 309 : 2005 Compressed Oxygen Gas- Specification (Fourth Revision)

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

[Ref.: CHD 6/IS 309]

Dr. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist-E, Director & Head (Chenaical)

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 930.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानकब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

क्रम. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की

संख्या संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

31 जुलाई, 2005 1. आईएस 15578 : 2005 गैस मिश्रयों के प्रहस्तन व उपयोग कीरीति संहिता 2020

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 6/आई एस 15578 ]

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

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2006

S. O. 930.- 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. & year of the No. Indian Standards Established

No. & year ofthe Indian Standards , if any Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31 July, 2005 1. IS 15578 : 2005 Code of practice for handling and usage of gas mixtures

Copy of this Standrad 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, Punc, Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref.: CHD 6/1S 15578 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 931.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

क्रम.

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

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

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

31मई, 2005 1 . आई एस 15583: 2005 संपीडित हीलियम गैस- विशिष्ट

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 6/ आई एस 15583 ]

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

New Delhi , the 2nd March , 2006

3. 0. 931. In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of lodian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto ameted have been established on the date indicated against each :

2021

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

No. & year of the Indian Standards Established

Sl. No.

(1) (2)

1. IS 15583 : 2005 Compressed Helium Gas- Specification

SCHEDULE

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

(3)

(4)

31May, 2005 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11,0002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref.: CHD 6/IS 15583 ] Dr. U. C. SRIVASTAVA , Scientist - E Director & Head ( Chemical )

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 932.- 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 :-

स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों ) की

क्रम.

संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

संख्या

(2)

(1)

1. आई एस 15584 : 2005 मेडिकल एक्सरे फिल्म

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

(4)

(3)

31जुलाई, 2005 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, ब्बण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 1 / आई एस 15584 ] डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक ई. निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2006

S. O. 932. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

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

(1) (2)

1. IS 15584: 2005 Medical X -Ray Films

SCHEDULE

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

(4)

(3)

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

[Ref.: CHD 1/IS 15584 ]

Dr. U. C. SRIVASTAVA , Scientist-E Director & Head (Chemical) 2022

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 933.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन) विनियम 1988 के नियम ( 4 ) के उप -नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेन्सो के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है , वे स्वीकृत कर दिये गए है : -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक लाइसेंस सं. चालू तिथि

क्र.स.

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

1. 8688916 17-1-2006

हालमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्डज्वेलरी 1417 1999 मै. किशनलाल ज्वैलर्स, मैन बाजार, हनुमानगढ़ टाउन ( राज.)

2. 8689615 19-1-2006

पीपीसी 1489 ( भाग 1 और 2 )

मै. श्री सीमेन्ट लि. ( यूनिट 3 )

(मै. श्री सीमेन्ट लि. की यूनिट) ग्राम व पोस्ट- रास, तहसील- जैतारण

जिला-पाली ( राज. )

3. 8689716 19-1-2006 -तदैव-

साधारण पोर्टलेण्ड सीमेन्ट 53 ग्रेड 12269 : 1987 30-1-2006

4. 8691093

रबड इनसरेशन जवान्टिग 638 : 1979 मै. रिषभ पाइपस प्रा. लि. ,

ई-1248 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, घटल विस्तार, रोड नं. 7, भीवाडी, जिला-अलवर

[संदर्भ: सीएमडी 1/13 : 11 ]

एस.एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2006

S. O. 933. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification Regulation , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedules .

SCHEDULE

Operative Date Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No. (CM/L)

Sl . No.

Article/Process Covered by the licences and the relevant IS: Designation (2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5)

17-01-2006

1. 8688916

HallmarkingGold Jewellery IS 1417 : 1999 M/sKishanlal Jewellers Main BazarHanumangarh Town, (Raj .)

2. 8689615

19-01-2006

PPC IS : 1489 ( Pt . 1 & 2) : 1991 M/ s Shree Cement Ltd. (Unit III)

(Unit of M/ s Shree Cement Ltd.) Village & Post Rass , Tehsil : Jaitran Distt . Pali (Raj .)

3. 8689716 19-1-2006

-do-

OPC 53 Grade IS : 12269 : 1987 30-01-2006

4. 8691093

M/s Risabh Pipes Pvt . Ltd.

Rubber Insertion Jointing IS : 638 : 1979 E- 1248 , RIICO Industrial Area, Ghatal Ext . Road No. 7, Bhiwadi , Distt. Alwar

[Ref.: CMD - 1/13 : 11 ]

S. M. BHATIA , Dy. Director General (Marks ) 2023 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2006

कन.आ. 934.-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 करप्ता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स शॉप स्केल्स, #संख्या यू-55 , 2 मैन रोड, के. पी . अग्रहारा , मगदी रोड, बंगलौर-560023 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसएस-6969 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड कानाम " शॉर्प" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/ 1025 समनुदेशित किया मया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए 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 हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्राम तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. 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 ( 281 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 17th February , 2006

S.O. 934. 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 " SS - 6969 " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SHARP " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Sharp Scales , # No. U - 55 , 2nd Main Road , K.P. Agrahara , Magadi Road , Bangalore - 560023 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2005/ 1025;

The said model ( see the figure given above) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with 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 instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100, to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g or more 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 × 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 said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 281 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2025 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 935.-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 माष मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स शॉर्प स्केल्स, # संख्या यू-55 , 2 मैन रोड, के. पी . अग्रहारा , मगदी रोड, बंगलौर-560023 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसएस -9696 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शॉर्प " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005/ 1026 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 किलो ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 281 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 514 Gl /2006-6 2026

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( i) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 200GTHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 17th Fel quary, 2006

S.O. 935. 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 witli 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 iciel is likely to maintain us accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating . non- automatic ( Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SS - 9696 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SHARP " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Sharp Scales , # No. U - 55 , 2nd Main Road, K.P. Agraltara, Magadi Road, Bangalore- 560023 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/ 1026;

The said model ( see the figure given below ) is at strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000kg. and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 200g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) 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 opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 281 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 2027 ( भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] .

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 936.-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 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 उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स स्टेन्डर्डस स्केल्स इण्डिया, संख्या 307/3 , एस पी रोड, बंगलौर -560002 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसएसआई- टीटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सन" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 1029 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेय्तुलन 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 । 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 ग्राम के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. 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 ( 298) /2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2028

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 17th February , 2006

S.O. 936. 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 ) Rulcs , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of series " SSI - TT " and of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) with brand name " SUN " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/ s The Standards Scale's India , No. 307/3 , S.P. Road , Bangalore - 560002 , Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/ 2005/1029;

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

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval ( 2 ) 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× 10 % , where kis 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. Na . WM - 21 ( 298 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 2029 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 937.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स स्टेन्डर्डस स्केल्स इण्डिया , संख्या 307/3 , एस पी रोड, बंगलौर -560002 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसएसआई- पीटी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सन " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005 / 1030 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 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 किलोग्राम 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 ( 298 ) / 2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 2030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 17th February , 2006

S.O. 937. 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 madel is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods af sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) af 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 series " SSI - PT " and of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SUN " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s The Standards Scale's India , No. 307/3 , S.P. Road, Bangalore - 561002 , Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2005/1030 :

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

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent from opening of the ntachine 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 maxinnan capacity upto 50kg . 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 × 10 % , 2 × 10 % , or 5 × 10 % , where k is a positive ar 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 ( 298) /2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Directorof Legal Metrology 2031 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 1.1 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 938.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स स्केल इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एण्ड सर्विस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, # 246 ( ओल्ड # 137 ) अंगप्पा नायकेन स्ट्रीट, प्रथम तल, इर्राबालु स्ट्रीट के सामने , पर्यस, चेन्नई द्वारा निर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " मार्क " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बेल " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05/ 924 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल इलैक्ट्रोमैगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पनसेशन प्रिंसिपल आधारित अस्वचालित (टेबल टोप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 4100 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 0.01 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल डायोड ( 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 मुद्रांकन 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 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. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं. और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 1010 *,के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम-21 (267)/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2032

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 17th February , 2006

S.O. 938.-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 " MARK " series of special accuracy ( accuracy class - 1 ) and with brand name " BEL " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s The Scaletech Instruments & Services Pvt . Ltd. , # 246 (Old # 137) , Angappa Naicken Street , 1st Floor, Facing Errabalu Street , Parrys , Chennai -600 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/924;

The said model is an electromagnetic force compensation principle based non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 4100g and minimum capacity of Ig . The verification scale interval ( c ) is 0.01g. It has a tarc device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Diode ( LCD ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V , 50Hz alternate current powers supply .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) equal to or more than 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 %, 2× 10k , or 5 × 10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zcro , 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 ( 267)/ 2005 ]

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

2033 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/ फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 939.-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 मानक्र ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स स्केल टैक इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स एण्ड सर्विसेज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, # 246 ( ओल्ड # 137 ) अंगप्पा नैयक्कन स्ट्रीट, प्रथम तल, इराबालू स्ट्रीट के सामने, पैरीयस, चेन्नई -600001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " क्रूजर " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्केलटैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 05 /925 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलनं परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2ग्राम तक' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अन्तराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमांन 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 (267 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 514 GI /2006-7 2034

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delini, the 17th February, 2006

S.O. 939.-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 Medel is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied corations;

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 " CRUZER " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - !! I ) and with brand name " SCALETECH " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . The Scaletech Instruments & Services Pvt . Ltd. , # 246 (Old # 137 ) , Angappa Naicken Street , 1st Floor, Facing Errabalu Street , Parrys , Chennai -600 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/925;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 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 230Volts 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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . or with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 10% or 5 × 100 %, 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 (267)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2035 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006 /फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 940.-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 उषयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) उप- धारा और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एलजेंट इंजीनियर्स , सी-82 , सैक्टर -10, नौएडा-201301 , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा निर्मित " एल डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के स्वचालित गेवीमीट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एलीजेंट इंजीनियर्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/ 997 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ( ग्रेवी फिलिंग ) उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 ग्राम है । इसकी अधिकतम फिलिंग दर 7-25 बैग प्रति मिनट है । यह सहज प्रवाह वाले उत्पाद जैसे चाय , चीनी, चावल, बीज, दालें अनाज आदि भरने के लिए तैयार की गई है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित 1 ग्राम से 50 किलोग्राम तक के उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 176 ) /2005] पी. ए . कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2036

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 17th February , 2006

S.O. 940. 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 ' LW ' series with brand name ' Elegants Engineers ' ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M / s Elegants Engineers , C- 82 , Sector- 10, Nodia - 201 301 , Uttar Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005 / 997;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic gravimetric filling instrument . Its maximum capacity is 10g to 10kg. It has a maximum fill rate of 7-25 bags per minute. 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 he done to prevent from opening of ( he machine for fraudulent practices .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 176)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 2037 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 941.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एजीजेंट इंजीनियर्स , सी-82 , सैक्टर-10 , नौएडा-201301 , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा निर्मित " एल " श्रृंखला की स्वचालित फिलिंग मशीन (पिस्टन फिलर ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एलीजेंट इंजीनियर्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 /998 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्तमॉडल एक स्वचालित फिलिंग मशीन ( पिस्टन फिलर ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 25 ग्राम से एक किलो तक अथवा समतुल्य मात्रा है । यह सहज प्रवाह के चिकनाई युक्त तरल उत्पाद जैसे तेल, क्रीम , टूथपेस्ट, जैली , जैम, घी, पेंट, डिस्टैम्पर आदि को भरने के लिए उपयोग किया जाता है । यह प्रति मिनट 10-35 पैकेट भरता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित 1 ग्राम से 2 किलोग्राम अथवा समतुल्य मात्रा के उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी शामिल होंगे ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 176) /2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2038

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 17th February , 2006

S.O. 941. 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 Automatic filling machine (Piston Filler) of " L " series and with brand name " Elegant Engineers " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/ s . Elegants Engineers , C- 82, Sector - 10 , Nodia - 201 301 , Uttar Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005 / 998 ;

The said model ( See the figure given below ) an automatic filling machine ( Piston Filler) and its maximum capacity is 25g . to 1 kg . or equivalent volume . It is used for filling the viscous liquids products like oil , cream . toothpaste, jelly , jam , ghee , paints , distemper etc. It fills 10-35 packets per ntinute . The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz 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 ( 176)/2005 ]

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

2039 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 942.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स पूनावाला इलैक्ट्रो वे , चक्कापीर गली, दरगाह के बाद, लालगेट, सूरत , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जीआईएलएलपी-600 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गिल" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005 /499 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट 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 प्रमाणपत्र 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. 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 1,000 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 ( 156 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2040

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2006

S.O. 942. 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 " GILLP - 600 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- 11) and with brand name " GILL " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Poonawala Electro Weigh , Chakkapir Gali , Next to Dargah , Lalgate , Surat , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2005/499;

FRemote Display

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

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , scaling shall also be done to prevent 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 maxintum capacity above 50 kg. and up to 1,000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 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 said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 156 ) /2004 ]

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

2041

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 943.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स फिलिप वेमेक प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं. 260/18-20, साने गुरूजी मार्ग , कस्तूरबा होस्पिटल के सामने, जेकब सर्कल , मुंबई -400011 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " पी डब्ल्यू टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फिलिप वेमेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 /441 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है

PHILIPS WEIGHMECH

MAX. CAP.30KB

CLASS-8- PWT SERIES

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 174 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 514 Gl/2006-8 2042

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2006

S.O. 943. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to itby 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 non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table to type ) with digital indication of " PWT " series of high accuracy ( accuracy class - 11 ) and with brand name " Philips Weighmech " ( herein referred to as the sand Model) , manufactured by M/ s Philips Weighmech Private Limited, No. 260/ 18-20 , Sane Guruji Marg, Opp. Kasturba Hospital , Jacob Circle , Mumbai -400011 , Maharastra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2005/441

PHILIP'S WEIGHIMECH

MAIN CAP 509

MAX CAP 30kg

CLASS-- PWI SERIES

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 20kg and minimum capacity of 50g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 1g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 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 forfraudulent practices .

Further, in ex. ise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Cemral Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg 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 × 10 %, 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k, where kis 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 ( 174)/ 2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2043 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 944.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एप्सन व्हे सिस्टम , आर जेड-1 Q1 /43 , गली नं. 8 , मोहननगर, नई दिल्ली -110046 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -11 ) वाले " ई पी टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एप्सन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2006/ 80 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशितः करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित. अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट 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 उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. या 50 मि.ग्रा. के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो घमात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 355)/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2006

S.O. 944. 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 belaw ) 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 the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) of series " EPTT " and with brand name " EPSON " ( hereinafter referredto as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Epson Weigh System , RZ - 101 / 43 , Gali No. 8 , Mohan Nagar , New Delhi - 110046 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2006/ 80 ;

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 and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram , working principle etc.

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 upto 50 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Imgto 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, 2X10k , ro 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 (355 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2045 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 945.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एप्सन व्हे सिस्टम , आर जेड-101 /43 , गली नं. 8 , मोहननगर, नई दिलली -110046 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ई पी पी एफ " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एप्सन" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2006/ 81 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

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

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 355 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप, विज्ञान 2046

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927.

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2006

S.O. 945. 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 medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " EPPF " and with brand name " EPSON " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Epson Weigh System, RZ - 101 / 43 , Gali No. 8 , Mohan Nagar , New Delhi - 110046 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 2006/81;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g . 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 230Volts , 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 and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram , working principle etc.

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 mzximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 5000 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 % , ro 5 × 100k, 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 (355)/ 2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2047 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 946.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाएं रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स कोस्मो स्केल्स एण्ड सिस्टम्स , 131 , सेक्टर-8 , अर्बन एस्टेट करनाल , हरियाणा-132 001 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कोस्मो " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2006/96 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 सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (ई ) 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 ।

0000

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन 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 ( 331 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2048

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2006

S.O. 946. 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 " CT " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " COSMO " ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Cosmo Scales and Systems , 1.31 , Sector- 8 , Urban Estate , Karnal, Haryana- 132 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2006/96 ;

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 20 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 , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

0000

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 nıaximum capacity up to 50 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 5,000 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 × 10% , 2 × 10 % or 5 × 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number ar 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 (331 )/2005]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2049 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 947.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स कोस्मो स्केल्स एण्ड सिस्टम्स , 131 , सेक्टर-8 , अर्बन एस्टेट, करनाल , हरियाणा -132001 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वसूचक, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कोस्मो" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2006 /97 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य केसमतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 331 )/2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 514 GI / 2006-9 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 HALGUNA 20 , 1927

2050

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( i ) ]

New Delhi , the 21st Febuary, 2006

S.O. 947. 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, 1975 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of self indicating, non- automatic ( Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " CP " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " COSMO " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Cosmo Scales and Systems , 131 , Sector 8 , Urban Estate , Karnal , Haryana- 132001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2006/97 ;

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

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 (331 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2053 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 949.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स यूनीक स्केल , 214 , राजरत्न इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, एस.एन.डी.टी. महिला कॉलेज के पीछे , अमेरिकन स्प्रिंग के पास मलाड ( पश्चिम ) , मुंबई -400064 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " यू.एस.सी. " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज स्केल के लिए कनवर्शन किट ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " यूनीक स्केल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005 /561 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्तमॉडल एक तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) का मान 10 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (77 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2006

S.O. 949. 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 af sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) af Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion Kit for Weighbridge ) with " USC" scries belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " UNIQUE SCALE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Unique Scale , 214 , Raj - Ratna Industrial Estate, Opp. S. N. D. T. Mahila College , Near American spring , Malad ( West ), Mumbai - 400064 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 05 /561 ;

0000

The said model is a weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 200kg . The verificatin scale interval ( e) is 10 kg . It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect .

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

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

[ F. No. WM -21 ( 77 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 2055 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 950.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स विजय एन्टरप्राइजेज , 6 , थालिया कॉम्प्लैक्स, सदर बाजार, जिला बैतुल, मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सी टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " केसियो इन्ड " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2006/98 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता. 20 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 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 सीलबन्द 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्राम से 50 मि. ग्राम के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन) और 100 मि.ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2.× 10 या 5 × 10 के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (330 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2056

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2006

S.O. 950.- 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 " CT" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name " CASIO IND " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s . Vijay Enterprises , 6, Thalliya Complex, Sadar Bazar , Dist . Betul , M.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 06/98 ;

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

In addition to sealing the stamping plate scaling shall also be dane 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 500 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (u ) in the range of 100 to 5,000 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 × 10 , 2× 10k or 5 × 10 , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 330)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2057 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 951.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स विजय एन्टरप्राइजेज, 6 , थालिया कॉम्प्लैक्स, सदर बाजार, जिला बैतुल, मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वसूचक, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " केसियो इन्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2006/99 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत 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 सीलबन्द 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जी 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से अधिक और 5,000 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 330 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 514 G1/ 2006-10 PARTS S 2058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February , 2006

S.O. 951. 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 periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of self indicating non- automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " CP " eries of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " CASIO IND " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by: M / s . Vijay Enterprises , 6 , Thalliya Complex, Sadar Bazar, Dist . Betul , M.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06 /99 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 100g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 5.000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle . design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

JF. No. WM - 21 (330 )/2005 /

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legat Metrology 2059 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006 /फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 952.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एलेक्जेन्डर स्केल प्रा. लि. 12/2 , आमी बाजार, बी/एच ज्योति संघ, पत्थरकूवा, अहमदाबाद-380001 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एफ एस पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एलेक्जेन्डर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्‌चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005 /972 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा..है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (ई ) का मान 100 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

ALEXANDRA

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उम- 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई' मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10% , के हैं , जो बनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21( 161 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2060

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2006

S.O. 952. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and brand name " Alexandra " and series " FSP " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M /s . Alexandra Scale Pvt . Ltd. , 12/2 . Amee Bazar, B /h Jyotisangh , Pattharkuva, Ahmedabad - 380001 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/972;

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

ALEXANDRA

Platform Scale FSP

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

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 161 )/2004 |

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2061 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 953.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एलेक्जेन्डर स्केल प्रा. लि. , 12/2, आमी बाजार, बी/एच ज्योति संघ, पत्थरकूवा, अहमदाबाद -380081 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एफ एस टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल काजिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एलेक्जेन्डर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2005 /971 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10%, 2× 10* या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम्-21 ( 161 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 2062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2006

S.O. 953. 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 high accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) and brand name " Alexandra " and series " FST " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Alexandra Scale Pvt . Ltd. , 12/2 . Amee Bazar. B /h Jyotisangh , Pattharkuva, Ahmedabad - 380001 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05/971;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 15kg. and minimum capacity of 50g. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 1g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

TURAAL

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5,000 to 50.000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k . 2 × 10k or 5× 10 , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 161 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2063 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 954.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए. मैसर्स एलेक्जेन्डर स्केल प्रा. लि. , 12/2 , आमी बाजार, बी/एच ज्योति संघ, पत्थरकूवा, अहमदाबाद-38001 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एफ एस सी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एलेक्जेन्डर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/973 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40000 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति हैजिसका 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 विद्युतं प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

PRINTER

Conversion Kit

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21( 161 )/2004 ] .

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) | 2064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2006

S.O. 954. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion kit for Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and brand name " Alexandra " and series " FSC" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Alexandra Scale Pvt . Ltd. , 12/2, Amee Bazar, B /h Jyotisangh , Pattharkuva , Ahmedabad- 380001 . Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05/973 ;

The said model (see the figure given below ) is a load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 40000 kg. and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply ;

PRINTER

Conversion Kit

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

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

[ F. No. WM -21 ( 161 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology 2065 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 955.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स भगवानजी जीवन एंड संस , रीवर बैंक, सावरकुण्डला, गुजरात -364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बी जे- टी पी- 1 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सोनाटा एक्स लेन्ट" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 949 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मकं 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 सीलबन्द 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि . ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. के ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 77 )/ 2005 |

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 514 GI /2006-11- 2066

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2006

S.O. 955. 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 " BJ - TT - 1 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " SONATA X Lent " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Bhagvanji Jivan & Sons , River Bank , Savarkundala - 364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005 / 949;

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

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 ( 77)/2005 ]

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

2067

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 956.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स भगवानजी जीवन एंड संस, रीवर बैंक, सावरकुण्डला, गुजरात-364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बी जे- टी टी- II" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सोनाटा एक्स लेन्ट" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/950 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 किग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम्र-21 ( 77 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निर्देशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART 11-- SEC . 3 ( ii) | ==

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2006

S.O. 956. 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 " BJ - TT - II " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - 111 ) and with brand name " SONATA X Lent " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Bhagvanji Jivan & Sons , River Bank , Savarkundala - 364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 05/950 ;

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 15kg and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrunient operates on 230 Volts . and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 (77)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2069 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 957.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स भगवानजी जीवन एंड संस, रीवर बैंक, सावरकुण्डला, गुजरात -364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बी जे- टी टी- I " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सोनाटा एक्स लेन्ट" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 951 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 किलो ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत 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 सीलबन्द 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 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 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से अधिक और 5000 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10* के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 77 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II--SEC . 3( ii) ] 2070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2006

S.O. 957. 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 " BJ - TP - I " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SONATA X Lent " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Bhagvanji Jivan & Sons , River Bank, Savarkundala - 364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005 /951 :

The said model ( see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 100g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply :

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Govemment hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and upto 5000 kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ` e` valuc of to 5g or more and with' e' value 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM -21 ( 77 )/2005 )

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2071 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 958. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार,, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती हैं;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का जिसका रेखांक सं. ई.सी.एल./एस.बी.पी./ एस.यू.आर. भी ./ 2005/ 10 तारीख 26-8-2005 का निरीक्षण निदेशक (तकनीकी) ( पी. एवं पी . ) ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. सेंकटोरिया, डाकघर दिसेरगढ़ , जिला बर्दवान , पिन-713333 ( प. बगांल) के कार्यालय में कलक्टर, बर्दवान, पिन- 713333 पश्चिमी बंगाल के कार्यालय में, या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितवद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा (7) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शे, चार्ट, और अन्य दस्तावेज, इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन् की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर, निदेशक ( तकनीकी) (पी. एवं पी. ) ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. सेंकटोरिया , डाकघर - दिसेरगढ़ जिला बर्दवान (पिन 713333) (प. बगांल) को भेजेगा ।

अनुसूची

खण्ड- सोनपुर रानीगंज कोयला क्षेत्र

जिला बर्दवान (प. बंगाल)

थाना

जिला क्षेत्र हेक्टेयर टिप्पणियां क्रम सं०

जे.एल सं०

मौजा(ग्राम) का नाम

1. केन्द्रा खोटाडीह 1

30.00

बर्दवान

भाग 2.

पांडवेश्वर पांडवेश्वर

बीलपहारी

39.00

भाग

बर्दवान

200

पांडवेश्वर

बर्दवान

भाग दालूरबांध

चक्राला

3.00

पांडवेश्वर

बर्दवान

भाग 12

5. जोआलभांगा

77.00

बर्दवान

पांडवेश्वर

भाग 2072

13 6. भाटमूरा

7 .

14 कोनारडीही

20 नबग्राम

21 9. भालूका

22 10. सोनपूर

बाजारी

11.

23 12.

28 शंकरपूर

क 1 क 2

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20,1927

भाग

68.00

पांडवेश्वर

बर्दवान

भाग

57.00

पांडवेश्वर

बर्दवान

भाग बर्दवान

175.00

पांडवेश्वर

83.12

भाग बर्दवान

पांडवेश्वर

भाग

365.88

बर्दवान

पांडवेश्वर

70.00

भाग बर्दवान

पांडवेश्वर

43.00

भाग पांडवेश्वर

बर्दवान

1211.00

( लगभग) कुल

सीमा विवरण प्लेट क

रेखा क 1 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा क्रेन्द्रा खोटाडीह से होकर जाती है तथा क 2 बिंदु पर मिलती है ।

क 2 क 3 रेखा क 2 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा- बिलपहारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 3 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क३ क4

रेखा क 3 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा दालुरबांध से होकर जाती हैं तथा क 4 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 4 क 5 रेखा क 4 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा दालुरबांध से होकर जाती है तथा क 5 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 5-क 6

रेखा क 5 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा दालुरबांध से होकर जाती है तथा क 6 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 6- क 7

रेखा के 6 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा दालुरबांध से होकर जाती है तथा क 7 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 7 -क 8

रेखा क 7 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा सोनपुर से होकर जाती है तथा क 8 बिन्दु पर मिलती है । क 8 - क 9

रेखा क 8 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा भालुका से होकर जाती है तथा क 9 बिन्दु पर मिलती है । क 9 -क 10 रेखा क 9 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा भालुका से होकर जाती है तथा क 10 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 10- क 11 रेखा क 10 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा सोनपूर से होकर जाती है तथा क 11 बिन्दु पर मिलती है । 2073 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

क 11- क 12 रेखा क 11 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 12 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 12- क 13 रेखा क 12 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 13 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 13- क 14 रेखा क 13 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 14 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 14- क 15 रेखा क 14 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौज़ा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 15 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 15- क 16 रेखा क 15 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 16 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 16- के 17 रेखा क 16 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 17 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 17-क 1 रेखा क 17 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा बाजारी से होकर जाती है तथा क 1 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

प्लेट - ख

क 6- ख 11 रेखा क 6 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा दालुरबांध से होकर जाती है तथा ख 1 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 1 ख 2 रेखा ख 1 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा चक्राला से होकर जाती है तथा ख 2 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 2 - ख 3 रेखा ख 2 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा चक्राला से होकर जाती है तथा ख 3 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 3- ख 4 रेखा ख 3 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा जवालभांगा से होकर जाती है तथा ख 4 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 4 - ख 5 रेखा ख 4 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा जवालभांगा से होकर जाती है तथा ख 5 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 5 - ख 6 रेखा ख 5 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा जवालभांगा से होकर जाती है तथा ख 6 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

514 Gl/ 2006-12 2074

[ PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 PHALGUN 20, 1927

6- ख 7 रेखा ख 6 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा भाटमोरा से होकर जाती है तथा ख 7. बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 7 ख 8 रेखा ख 7 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा कोनारडीही से होकर जाती है तथा ख 8 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख ४ ख 9 रेखा ख ४ बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और नौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ख 9 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 9 ख 10 रेखा ख 9 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ख 10 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 10 ख 11 रेखा ख 10 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ख 11 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 11 ख 12 रेखा ख 11 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा कोनारडीही से होकर जाती है तथा ख 12 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 12 ख 13 रेखा ख 12 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ख 13 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 13 ख 14 रेखा ख 13 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा भालुका से होकर जाती है तथा ख 14 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 14 क 9 `ख्रा ख 14 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा भालुका से होकर जाती है तथा क 9 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 9 क 8 रेखा क 9 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा भालुका से होकर जाती है तथा क 8 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 8 क 7

रेखा क 8 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा सोनपुर से होकर जाती है तथा क 7 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

क 7 क 6

रखा क 7 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा दालुरबांध से होकर जाती है तथा क 6 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

प्लेट ग

ख 9 ग 1 रेखा ख 9 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ग 1 बिन्दु पर मिलती है । 2075 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

1 ग 2 रेखा ग 1 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ग 2 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 2 ग 3

रेखा ग 2 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ग 3 बिंदु पर मिलती है ।

ग 3 ग 4 रेखा ग 3 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा शंकरपुर से होकर जाती है तथा ग 4 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 4 - ग 5 रेखा ग 4 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा शंकरपुर से होकर जाती है तथा ग 5 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 5 ग 6 रेखा ग 5 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा शंकरपुर से होकर जाती है तथा ग 6 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 6 - ग 7 रेखा ग 6 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा शंकरपुर से होकर जाती है तथा ग 7 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 7 ग 8 रेखा ग 7 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा शंकरपुर से होकर जाती है तथा ग 8 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 8 ग 9 रेखा ग 8 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ग 9 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 9 ग 10 रेखा ग 9 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ग 10 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ग 10 ग 10 रेखा ग 10 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ग 10 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ख 10 ख 9 रेखा ख 10 बिन्दु से प्रारम्भ होती है और मौजा नबग्राम से होकर जाती है तथा ख 9 बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

[ फा. सं. -43015/9/2005- पी.आर.आई. डब्ल्यू. ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 19, 2027

2076

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Ministry of Coal

New Delhi , the 27th February, 2005

S. O. 958.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957 (20 of 1957) , (herein after referred to as the said Act ) the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal therein .

The Plan bearing no . ECL/ SBP/ SURV/2005/ 10 dt. 26.8.05 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Director (Tech ) (P & P) , Eastern Coalfields Limited , Sanctoria , P.O. Dishergarh , Dist .: Burdwan ( West Bengal) Pin- 713333 or in the office of the Collector , Burdwan ( West Bengal) or in the Office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata;

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in sub- section (7 ) of section 13 of the said Act to the Director (Tech ) (P& P) , Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria , within ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the Official Gazette .

Schedule

Block - Sonepur, Raniganj Coalfields

District Burdwan ( West Bengal )

Drawing No. ECL/ SBP / Surv/ 2005/ 10

SI, No.

JL No.

Mouza (Village)

dt . 26.08.2005

District

Remarks

Area in Hectare

Police Station

(Thana)

Kendra Khottadi

Part

30.00

Burdwan

1 Pandaveswar

1 .

2 2. Bilpahari

4 3 . Dalurbandh

4. Chakkarala

12 5. Joalbhanga

6. Bhatmura

14 7. Konardihi

20 8. Nabagram

21 9. Bhaluka

22 10. Sonepur

23 11. Bazari

28 12. Shankarpur

Boundary description :

Part

39.00

-do-

200.00

-do-

Part

-do-

Part

3.00

-do-

Part

77.00

-do-

Part

-do-

68.00

57.00

-do-

Part

-do-

-do- 175.00 Part

-do-

83.12 Part

-do-

Part

365.88

-do-

70.00 Part

Part

-do-

43.00

-do-

Total : 1211.00 ( approx . )

Plate -A

A1 -A2 Line starts from point Al and passes through mouza Kendra - Khottadi and meets at point A2 .

A2-A3 Line starts from point A2 and passes through Mouza Bilpahari and meets at pointA3.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2077

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

A3 -A4 Line starts from point A3 and passes through mouza Dalurband and meets at point A4.

A4-A5 Line starts from point A4 and passes through mouza Dalurband and meets at point A5 .

A5-A6 Line starts from point A5 and passes through mouza Dalurband and meets at point A6 .

A6 -A7 Line starts from point A6 and passes through mouza Dalurband and meets at point A7.

A7 -A8 Line starts from point A7 and passes through mouza Sonepur and meets at pointA8 .

A8 -A9 Line starts from point A8 and passes through mouza Bhaluka and meets at point A9 .

A9-A10 Line starts from point A9 and passes through mouza Bhaluka and meets at pointA10.

A10 -A11 Line starts from point A10 and passes through mouza Sonepur and meets at point All .

All -A12 Line starts from point All and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at pointA12.

A12-A13 Line starts from point A12 and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at pointA13 .

A13 -A14 Line starts from point A13 and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at pointA14.

A14 -A15 Line starts from point A14 and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at pointA15.

A15 -A16 Line starts from point A15 and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at pointA16.

A16-A17 Line starts from point A16 and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at point A17 . 、

A17 -A1 Line starts from point A17 and passes through mouza Bazari and meets at pointAl .

Plate-B

A6 - B1 Line starts from point A6 and passes through mouza Dalurband and meets atpointBl .

B1 -B2 Line starts from point Bl and passes through mouza Chakkarala and meets atpointB2 .

B2-B3 Line starts from point B2 and passes through mouza Chakkarala and meets atpoint B3 .

B3-B4 Line starts from point B3 and passes through mouza Joalbhanga and meets atpointB4 .

B4-B5 Line starts from point B4 and passes through mouza Joalbhanga and meets atpointB5.

2078

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20. 1927

B5 -B6 Line starts from point B5 and passes through mouza Joalbhanga and meets atpoint B6 .

B6-B7 Line starts from point B6 and passes through mouza Bhatmura and meets at pointB7.

B7 -B8 Line starts from point B7 and passes through mouza Konardihi and meets at pointB8.

B8 -B9 Line starts from point B8 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets atpoint B9 .

B9 -B10 Line starts from point B9 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets atpointB10.

B10 - B11 Line starts from point B10 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at point B11 .

B11 -B12 Line starts from point B11 and passes through mouza Konardihi and meets at point B12 .

B12- B13 Line starts from point B12 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets atpointB13 .

B13 - B14 Line starts from point B13 and passes through mouza Bhaluka and meets at pointB14.

B14- A9 Line starts from point B14 and passes through mouza Bhaluka and meets at pointA9 .

A9 -A8 Line starts from point A9 and passes through mouza Bhaluka and meets at pointA8.

A8-A7 Line starts from point A7 and passes through mouza Sonepur and meets at pointA8 .

A7-A6 Line starts from point A7 and passes through mouza Dalurbandh and meets at point A6.

Plate- C

B9 -C1 Line starts from point B9 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at pointC1 .

C1 -C2 Line starts from point Cl and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at pointC2.

C2-C3 Line starts from point C2 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at pointC3 .

C3 -C4 Line starts from point C3 and passes through mouza Shankarpur and meets at point C4 .

C4-C5 Line starts from point C4 and passes through mouza Shankarpur and meets atpoint C5.

C5 -C6 Line starts from point C5 and passes through mouza Shankarpur and meets at point C6.

2079 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

C6-C7 Line starts from point C6 and passes through mouza Shankarpur and meets atpoint C7 .

C7 -C8 Line starts from point C7 and passes through mouza Shankarpur and meets atpointC8 .

C8 -C9 Line starts from point C8 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at pointC9 .

C9 -C10 Line starts from point C9 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at pointC10.

C10-B10 Line starts from point C10 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets at point B10 .

B10 -B9 Line starts from point B10 and passes through mouza Nabagram and meets atpoint B9 .

[No. 43015/9/2005- PRIW] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy .

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 959. - 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. 2595 तारीख 8 जुलाई , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 23 जुलाई, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के 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 6 दिसम्बर , 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 शक्त्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया 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 विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

2080

अनुसूची

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

वर्ग मीटर गाव का नाम

एयर

हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

कम सं.

738

1 आंधली

116

213

00 30

208

189

190

00 01

191

209

206

कुल

241

2 मोराले

00 04

240

239

238

233

231

00 13

कुल

1036

3 बांबवडे

1040

1016

1014

1059

1000

995

00 02

984

951

00 02

950

948

00 01

925

924

923

00 01

803

796

1291

761

760

756

755

754 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2081

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर कम सं.

4 3

734 बांबवडे (निरंतर)

494

497

427

405

412 4 हजारवाडी

129

134

135

136

116

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas New Delhi , the 3th March , 2006

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

04 49

00 00

00 02 63

00 01 74

00 00 48

00. 07 05 कुल

00 43 95

00 02 20

00 34

00 08

00 07 34

00 73

00 28 79 कुल 01 56 07 [फा. सं. आर-31015/27/2004-ओ.आर || ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव S. O. 959.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2595 , dated the 8th 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 23rd 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- Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune ) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 6th December , 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 conferredby sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said 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, freefrom all encumbrances .

514 G1/2006-13 2082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2000/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Viilage

4 1

738 1 ANDHALI

116

213

208

189

190

191

209

206 2 MORALE

241

240

239

238

233

231

1036 3 BAMBAVADE

1040

1016

1014

1059

1000

995

984

951

950

948

925

924

923

803

796

1291

761

760

756

755

754 State : MAHARASHTRA Sub-Division

Area

No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.mt

8 5

00 02 92

00 05 78 2

00 04 29

00 30 54

00 06 30

00 06 16

00 01 19

08 88

Totai

00 06 65

00 04 27

00 00 71

00 13 43 Totai

00 01 43

00 05 85

00 00 71

00 00 49

00 00 30

00 03 83

00 00 53

02 50

00 30

02 41

00 30

01 16

00 30

00 62

01 34

00 00 65

00 37

01 85

00 00 30

00 44

00 00 80

00 00 60 2083 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PALUS

Sub-Division

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No.

Name of the Village

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8 1

734

00 04 49 3 BAMBAVADE ( Contd . )

494

00 00 48

497

00 02 63

427

00 01 74

00 48

405

412

00 07 05

00 43 95

Total

00 02 20 4 HAZARWADI

00 34 12

129

08 80

00 00 85

134

135

00 00 60

136

00 37

116

07 34

00 73

00 28

01 56 07

Total

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

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 960.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि अर्जन) , अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की अधिसूचना संख्या का. भारत के राजपत्र 2003 को प्रकाशित (1) में में पयोग के अधिकार का धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में और आ. 1338 , तारीख 30 अप्रैल , 2003 को जो भाग 2 , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii) तारीख 3 मई, की गई थी अधिकृत करते हुए नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ उल्लिखित व्यक्तियों को , गुजरात राज्य में उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ (2) में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्रों में अवस्थित विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं को वितरण के लिए गुजरात में जामनगर और हजीरा स्थित एल. एन . जी. टर्मिनल से गुजरात राज्य और पार्श्वस्थ राजस्थान और मध्यप्रदेश राज्य तक पुनः वाष्पित प्राकृतिक गैस के वरिवहन के लिए भूतपूर्व मेसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड , (जी. टी.आई. सी. एल. ) जिसका नाम अब मेसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइनस लमिटेड रखा गया है एंव जिसका रजिस्ट्रीकत कार्यालय 101 , शिवम अपार्टमेन्ट, १ पटेल कलोनी , बेदी बंदर रोड , जामनगर-8 में है , द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारियों के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है , अर्थात 2084

[ PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20, 1927

अनुसूची

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

व्यक्तियों के नाम और पते

(2)

(1)

गुजरात राज्य के सारे जिले 1. श्री के बी पाठक , सेवानिव्रत गुजरात राज्य प्रशासनिक सेवा के अधिकारी मार्फत मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइनस लमिटेड , 101 , शिवम अपार्टमेन्ट, 9 पटेल कलोनी , बेदी बंदर रोड , जामनगर -8

गुजरात राज्य के सारे जिले

2. श्री ए. के. संघवी , सेवानिव्रत गुजरात राज्य प्रशासनिक सेवा के अधिकारी मार्फत मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइनस लमिटेड , 101 , शिवम अपार्टमेन्ट, 9 पटेल कलोनी , बेदी बंदर रोड , जामनगर -8

गुजरात राज्य के सारे जिले

3. श्री बी.आई. गोहिल , सेवानिव्रति उप कलेकटर/ विशेष अध्किारी , विभागीय पूछताछ , गांधी नगर , मार्फत मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइनस लमिटेड , 101, शिवम अपार्टमेन्ट , 9 पटेल कलोनी , बेदी बंदर रोड , जामनगर -8

गुजरात राज्य के सारे जिले

4. श्री ऐ. बी. महता , सेवानिव्रति उप कलेकटर/ उप कलेकटर , (कटोती ) , अमरेली , मार्फत मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइनस लमिटेड 101, शिवम अपार्टमेन्ट, १ पटेल कलोनी , बेदी बंदर रोड, जामनगर-8

गुजरात राज्य के सारे जिले

5. श्री जे . एन. अमीन, डिप्टी कलेक्टर , सेवानिवृति प्रांत अध्किारी , नावासारी मार्फत मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइनस लमिटेड 101 , शिवम अपार्टमेन्ट , १ पटेल कलोनी , बेदी बंदर रोड , जामनगर -8

[फा. सं. एल-14014/33 /2005 -जी.पी. ] एस. बी. मंडल, अवर सचिव 2085 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 7th March , 2006

S. O. 960.- In pursuance of clause (a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1'962 ) and in supersession of Notification number S.O. 1338, dated the 30th April , 2003 , published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section (ii) on the 3rd May , 2003 , the Central Government hereby authorize the persons mentioned in column ( I ) of the Table given below to perform the functions of the competent authorities under the said Act for laying of the pipeline by erstwhile M/S Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited presently known as M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited (RGPL) having its Registered Office at 101 , Shivam Appartments , 9 Patel Colony, Bedi Bunder Road , Jamnagar -8 for transportation of natural gas in the State of Gujarat from the LNG terminals at Jamnagar and Hazira in Gujarat for distribution to various consumers located in the State of Gujarat and in the adjoining States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in respect of the areas specified in column ( 2 ) of the Schedule namely:-

Table:

Name and Address of the persons

Areas of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

All the Districts of Gujarat

I.Shri K.B.Pathak , Retired Gujarat State Administrative Service Officer C/o M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited 101 , Shivam Appartments, 9 Patel Colony, Bedi Bunder Road , Jamnagar -8

All the Districts of Gujarat

2 Shri A.K.Sanghvi , Retired Gujarat State Administrative Service Officer C/ o M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited 101 , Shivam Appartments . 9 Patel Colony, Bedi Bunder Road , Jamnagar -8

All the Districts of Gujarat

3 Shri V.I. Gohil , Retd. Deputy Collector/ as Special Officer for Departmental Enquiry , Gandhinagar M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, 101 , Shivam Appartments , 9 Patel Colony, Bedi Bunder Road , Jamnagar -8

All the Districts of Gujarat

4 Shri A.B. Mehta. Retd . Deputy Collector / as Deputy Collector (Recovery ) Amreli C/ o M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited. 101. Shivam Appartments , 9 Patel Colony, Bedi Bunder Road. Jamnagar - 8

All the Districts of Gujarat

Retd. 5. Shri J. N.Amin . Deputy Collector/ as Prant Officer Navsari , M/s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, 101 , Shivam Appartments . 9 Patel Colony . Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar -8

[F. No. L- 14014/33/2005-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

2086

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 961.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे ) से पकनी ( सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों 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 संजीव जाधव, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना (लोनी से पकनी तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते), हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर , मगरपट्टा एम व एन विंग, हादापसर 411028 (पुणे जिला) , महाराष्ट्र को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा |

अनुसूची

जिला: सांगली

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

तालुका: तासगांव

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं.

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर

उप-खण्ड संख्या

6 7

76 1 येलावी

1598

00 02

1599

1604

00 14

1600

00 11

1606

00 10 75

1607

00 14 25

1605

00 04 85

1603

00 05 15

1646

00 09

1645

00 16 22 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

2087

जिला: सांगली

तालुका: तासगांव

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर कम सं .

1644 1 येलावी (निरंतर)

1643

1675

1688

1640

1692

1693

1710

1709

1708

1707

1733 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5

6 7

15 30

00 19 64

00 06 14

00 36 98

00 13 95

00 20 49

00 32 27

00 11 73

00 40 40

गट नंबर 1733 और

00 01

1734 के बीच में

अस्फालटड रस्ता

1734

1953

1952

1949

1950

1969

1968

1967

1973

1974

1975

1978

1977

1980

1981

2055

2056

2057

00 06

00 13 14

00 04

00 04 61

00 08 85

0066 15

00 .

00 08 58

00 14 68

00 03 64

07 06

00 05

गट नंबर 2057 और

00 03 07

2060 के बीच में

अस्फालटड रस्ता

2059

2060

2061

00 04

09 50

गट नंबर 2061 और

2063 के बीच में गाडी

रस्ता

2063

00 02 38

00 12 2088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHAL.GUN 20. 1927

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

जिला: सांगली

तालुका: तासगांव

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर कम सं.

2064 1 येलावी (निरंतर)

2065

2066

2047

2046

2048

2044

2042

2041

2235

2236

2260

2259

2256

2258 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप -खण्ड संख्या

6 7

00 00 97

00 06

00 05 85

00 11

00 10 33

00 10 50

00 05

00 02

00 03

00 06 24

00 22 45

00 12 69

00 14 12

258 और 29

गट नंबर 2258

00 02 51

के बीच में मेटल्ड रस्ता

291

290 }

00 13 69

00 18 59

00 02 77

00 06 59

00 08

0012 79

00 07

00 21 85

00 12 28

00 05

00 02

00 03

00 04

00 02 90

00 06

00 07 35

00 39

00 34

00 81 43

00 05

गट नंबर 290 और 285 के

00 02 57

बीच में रस्ता

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2089

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

तालुका: तासगांव

जिला : सांगली

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर कम सं.

285 1 बेलावी (निरंतर)

284

283

282

281

280

279

278

277

276

275

274

273

272

271

270

266

265

264

263

262

261

260

259

258

256

257 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5

6 7

00 09 05

00 05 50

00 04 63

00 05 23

00 03 50

00 10

00 02 93

00 03 73

00 02 83

00 04

00 06 32

00 02 73

00 02 72

00 02 73

00 05 59.

00 06

00 10

00 04 75

00 07 57

86 00 08

06 39 .00

64 4

10 25

88 कुल

[फा. से . आर -31015/26/2004- ओ. आर-II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th March , 2006

S. O. 961.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni (Pune) to Pakni (Solapur ) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra , an extension pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

514 G1/2006-14 2090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2005/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

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

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

SCHEDULE

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

Taluka : TASGAON

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

1598 1 YELAVI

1599

1604

1600

1606

1607

1605

1603

1646

1645

1644

1643

1675

1688

1640

1692

1693

1710

1709

1708

1707

1733

Area

Sub-Division No.

Sq.mt

Hectare Are

8 5

00 14 50

00 11 00

00 10 75

14 25

04 85

05 15

00 09 94

16 22

15 30

00 19 64

06 14

00 36 98

13 95

20 49

00 00 70

00 32 27

00 11 73

00 40 40

00 01 81

Asphalted Road in

between Gat No

1733 & 1734

1734

1953

1952

1949 }

00 26 83

00 06 91

00 13 14

00 14 84 2091 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

Taluka : TASGAON

District: SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Name of the Village

7 8

1950

00 04 99 1 YELAVI ( Contd . )

1969

00 04 61

1968

00 13 97

1967

00 08 85

1973

00 66 15

1974

00 00 30

1975

00 08 58

1978

00 14 68

1977

00 03 64

1980

00 07

1981

00 06

2055

2056

00 05 74

2057

00 14 98

Asphalted Road in

between Gat No

03 07

2057 & 2060

}

2059

00 30

2060

00 04 67

2061

00 09 50

CartTrack in

between Gat No

00 02 38

2061& 2063

}

2063

00 12 26

2064

00 00 97

2065

00 06 31

2066

00 05 85

2047

00 11 63

2046

00 10 33

2048

00 10 50

2044

00 05 36

2042

00 05 88

2041

00 02 64

2235

00 03 23

2236

00 06 24

2260

00 22 45

2259

2256

00 12 69

2258

14 12

Metalled Road in

between Gat No

00 02 51

2258& 29

}

00 13 69

00 18 59 2092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20, 1927

Taluka : TASGAON

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

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

4 1

28 1 YELAVI ( Contd.)

291

290

Area

Sub-Division

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8

02 77

00 06 59

00 08 69

00 00 50

32 33

00 00

12 07 25

00 21 85

12 28

00 43

05 20

00 02 75

03 00

00 04 00

00 02 90

00 06

00 07 35

00 39 60

00 34 07

00 81 43

05 02

02 57

Road in between

Gat No 290 & 285

285

284

283

282

281

280

279

278

277

276

275

274

273

272

271

270

266 }

00 41 17

00 09 05

00 05 50

04 63

05 23

00 03 50

10 16

02 93

03 73

02 83

04 45

00 06 32

00 02 73

02 89

02 72

00 02 73

00 2093 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

Taluka : TASGAON

District: SANGLI

State: MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division No.

Nameofthe Village

Sq.mt

Hectare Are 2

7 8 1 YELAVI ( Contd. )

265

00 06 00

264

00 10 71

263

04 75

262

00 07 57

261

00 08 86

260

00 08 94

259

00 06 39

258

00 13 68

256

00 09 64

257

00 10 25

Total

12 00 88

[No. R-31015/26/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 962.- 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 इस से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री एफ. ए. बाबी. सक्षम प्राधिकारी , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कोपेरिशन लिमिटेड एच.पी. सी.एल. कंडला टर्मिनल 2 , बंग्लोझ 1 , खारी रोहर, गांधीद्याम , कच्छ, (गुजरात) -370 240 , गुजरात, को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 2094

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

अनुसूची

जिला: बनासकांठा

तालूका: कांकरेज

राज्य : गुजरात

उप खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

क्रम सं.

सं.

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

1767

पी1

कम्बोइ

[फा. सं . आर-31015/38/2004-ओ. आर- ॥ ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th March , 2006

S. O. 962.-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 the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to F. A. Babi,Competent Authority , Mundra - Delhi petroleum product pipeline , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , HPCL Kandla terminal - 2 , Bungalow No. - 1 , Khari Rohar, Gandhidham , Kutch ( Gujarat) - 370 240.

2095 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Taluk : KANKREJ

District : BANASKANTHA

State : GUJARAT Nameof Village

Survey no.

Sub-Division No.

Hectare

Area Are

Sr. No

Square Metre

7 1

1767

81 Kambol

[No. R- 31015/38/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 963. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 6-8-2005 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ . संख्या 2754 तारीख 02-08-2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील- वडोदरा , जिल्ला वडोदरा , राज्य गुजरात में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , वडोदरा द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार काअर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी .

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता . 07-09-2005 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा । 2096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20, 1927

अनुसूची तालुका: वडोदरा

[PART II-SEC. 3( i) ]

जिला: वडोदरा

गाँव कानाम

उप-खण्ड सं.

सर्वेक्षण सं-खण्ड सं.

3 आसोज

213

206

207

202

201

198

199

197

183

182

181

177

137

138

139

115

116

117

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर

वर्गमिटर

एयर

6 0

41 0

84 0

48 0

89 0

50 0

0.5 0

19 0

83 0

48 0

59 0

63 0

03 0

02 0

32 0

36 0

20 0

60 0

18 0

78 0

98 [फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2006-ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर संचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 963.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 2754 dated 02-08-2005 under sub section (1) ofsection 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule Tehsil -Vadodara , Dist . Vadodara , State Gujarat, for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Gujarat by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on 07-09-2005.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/ फाल्गुन 20, 1927

2097 Andwhereas 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 is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act. the Gentral Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification ishereby 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 direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting the Central Government , vests from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian oil corporation limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil - Vadodara

District : Vadodara

Survey/Block No

Name of Village

Sub-Division No. 1

213

Asoj

206

207

202

201

198.

199

197

183

182

181

177

137

138

139

115

116

117

514 G1 /2006-15

State : Gujarat

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 4

6 0

37 0

84 0

48 0

89 0

0.5 0

19 0

83 0

48 0

59 0

03 0

36 0

20 0

78 0

98 [F. No. R-25011/5/2006- Q.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

2098

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 964.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 6-8-2005 मे प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ . संख्या 2755 तारीख 02-08-2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील - सावली , जिल्ला वडोदरा , राज्य गुजरात में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , वडोदरा द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार काअर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी .

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां ता . 07-09-2005 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गईथी ;

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

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बेछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जीला: - वडोदरा

राज्य : गुजरात

तालुका: - सावली

क्षेत्रफल

गाँवकानाम

उप-खण्डसं.

सर्वेक्षण सं-खण्डसं.

वर्गमिटर

हेक्टर

एयर

पीलोल

115

52 114

120

118

119

132

130

142 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2099

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

3 पोलोल (जारी )

142

139

3P.

139

4/A/P

140

141

149

183

158

162

163

228

236

242

259

243

252

253

257

255

1140

812

1139

1134

811

813

818

822

838

837

836

835

840

839

842

844

845

857

2P1

856

711

712

709

6 0

56 0

24 0

93 0

94 0

82 0

12 0

53 0

66 0

35 0

04 0

30 0

48 0

95 0

12 0

09:

20 0

83 0

79 0

90 0

72 0

73 0

55 0

69 0

48 0

28 0

17 23 0

05 0

09 0

89 0

59 0

82 0

15 0

07 0

82 0

76 0

73 0

85 0

72 0

74 0

69 0

86 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

2100

706

पीलोल (जारी )

708

695

696

701

12.

698

699

689

647

1146

머머 P1

685

648

656

659

662

658

634

633

632

631

2.22

619

629

628

402

इन्द्राल

403

226

225

172

173

170

179

182

165

163

159

160

153

161

152

151

150

120

121

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

-08

0 2101

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3 1

इन्द्राल (जारी )

P-

2/B

482

481

493

492

490

524

535

538

537

552

557

556

551

669

563

668

666

667

664

663

653

654

650

651

711

744

743

753

757

1257

756

758

1276

2/P/1

3/1

1276

3/2

1276

6 0

41 0

87 0

19 0

54 0

70 0

08 0

99 0

52 0.

97 0

19 0

71 0

87 0

60 0

99 0

10.

26 0

84 2102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 27

2 भीमर

210

612

613,

611

582

580

581

590

583

588

589

561

562

563

565

559

536

549

539

546

545

488/387 गराधीया

493/391

494/390

496/398

495/400

482/401

479/399

480402

478/408

477/407

474/409

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

6 0

88 0

28 0

77 0

07 0

03 12

52 3

07 4

37 2

89 0

80 0

1 /A+ C

12 0

11 0

98 0

82 0

26 0

77 0

1P2

79 0

2P2

96 0

41 0

39 0

94 0

61 0

62 0

66 0

35 0

42 0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2103

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

510/432

गराधीया (जारी )

511/433

513/445

517/448

518/449

519/449

516/447

543/465

552/472

551/471

549/471

548/471

547/470

560/369

561/383

562/383

563/382

वडादला

2/B

218

114

207

206

188

187

1A/ P

129

147

150

144

143

3P2

114

3P1

114

53 0

13 0

87 0

11 0

34 0

07 0

03 0

00 0

74 0

65 0

18 0

46 0

49 0

60 0

08 0

15 0

03 0

69 0

03 0

26 0

15 0

13,

84 0

46 0

84 0

94 0

14 0

57 0

56 0

79 0

'38 2104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20 , 1927

165

हरीपुरा

165

166

2 हरीपुरा (जारी )

167

168

169

170

1P1

172

173

2P1

173

गगाडीया

181

3P3 अदलावाडा

181

4/A

181

4/B

181

23P2

181

23P3

182

11P3

182

11P2

202

182

2/C

2/B

182

2/A/ P2

182

2/A/ P1

182

5/A

182

5/B

3/2

182

115

1P लोटना

115

116

124

125

127

126

128

137

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

6 4

40 0

33 0

89 0

57 0

99 0

33 0

40 0

15 0

90 0

41 0

20 0

69 0

40 0

37 0

73 0

43 0

10 0

37 0

51 0

33 0

41 0

58 0

12 0

05 0

33 0

67 0

14 0

56 0

39 0

82 0

75 0

03 2105

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

लोटना ( जारी )

2P1

25.

2P2

149

सादर

150

151

153

155

154

183

182

181

179

6/1P

6/2

5/2P

2/2

180

264

मुढेला

266

265

267

271

365

364

348

349

350

345

514 GI / 2006-16

96 0

95 0

45 0

50 0

01 0

80 0

43 0

15 0

34 0

05 2106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

2 1

344 मुढेला (जारी )

335

336

330

332

326

327

23 सींगानीया

114 खाखरीया

114

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

6 3

02 0

01 0

12 0

77 0

85 0

27 1

62 0

44 1

97 0

10P2

10P6

10P5

86 0

5P1

45 4

3P1

3P2

55 1

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2006-ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 964.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 2755 dated 02-08-2005 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) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule Tehsil -Savli , Dist . Vadodara, State Gujarat, for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Gujarat by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the gene al public on 07-09-2005.

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2107

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed 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 direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting the Central Government , vests from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian oil corporation limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Dist: - Vadodara Tehsil : - Savli

Sub-Div. NO .

Survey/Block NO.

Nameof Village

115

Pilol

114

120

118

119

132

130

142

139

4/A/P

139

140

141

149

183

211 2 1

158

162

163

228

236

242

259.

243

252

253

257

State: Gujarat

Area

Hectare

Are Sq.mtr. 4

80 0

56 0

67 0

43 0

26 0

03 0

15 0

56 0

93 0

12 0

53 0

30 0

95 0

12 0

20 0

84 0

79 0

90 0

72 0

73 0

10.

69 0

-48 2108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20,1927

255 Pilol(Contd.)

1140

812

1139.

1134

811

813

818

822

838

837

836

835

840

839

842

844

845

857

856

711

712

709

706

708

695

696

701

698

699

689

647

1146

685

648

656

659

662

658

634

633

632

631

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

46 0

23 0

120

09 0

07 0

73 0

85 0

74 0

69 0

2P1

87 0

54 0

18 0

65 0

91 0

47 0

82 0

45 0

74 0

01 0

38 0

56 0

35 0

35 2

72 0

13 0

14 2109

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

619 Pilol(Contd.)

629

628

402 Indral

403

226

225

172

173

170

179

182

165

163

159

160.

153

161

152

151

150

120

121

482

481

493

492

490

524

535 4

81 0

50 0

33 0

22.

68 0

37 0

36 0

29 1

86 1

22 0

44 0

14 0

65 0

99 0

90 0

87 0

--P-

28 0

8 0

2/B

14 0

38 1

99 0

34 1

P1 2110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

535

Indral (contd.)

538

537

552

557

556

551

669

563

668

666

667

664

663

653

654

650

651

711

744

743

753

757

1257

756

758

2/P/ 1

1276

3/1

1276

3/2

1276

210

Vemar

----

12342

612

613

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 4

60 0

82 0

09 0

34 0

99 0

26 0

83 0

70 0

43 0

48 0

42 0

73 0

28 0

42 0

51 0

57 0

84 0

88 0

31 0

77 0

07 0

37 0

05 0

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2111

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

611

1/A+C Vemar(contd.)

582

580

581

590

583

588

589

561

562

563

565

559

536

1P2

536

2P2

549

539

546

545

488/387

Garadhiya

493/391

494/390

496/398

495/400

482/401

479/399

480402

478/408

477/407

474/409.

510/432

511/433

513/445

517/448

518/449

519/449

516/447

543/465

53 0

12 0

15 0

11 0

98 0

25 0

22 0

82 0

37 0

26 0

80 0

76 0

77 0

08.

44 0

60 0

18 0

70 0

79 0

96 0

92 0

97 0

41 0

39 0

94 0

16 0

47 0

61 0

12 0

87 0

62 0

-03

66 0

35 0

42 0

53 0

01 0

20 0

01 0

09 0

20 0

94 0

16.

13 2112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20, 1927

552/472

Garadhiya (Contd.)

551/471

549/471

548/471

547/470

560/369

561/383

562/383

563/382

2 Vadadala

-22

2/B

2-2 2

218

114

207

206

188

187

129

1A/P1

147

150

144

143

3P2

114

3P1

165

2 Haripura

165

166

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

03 0

44 0

74 0

65 0

19 0

18 0

02 0

10 0

08 0

15 0

88 0

26 0

15 0

84 0

37 0

05 0

94 0

87 0

14 0

04 0

57 0

56 0

79 0

78 0

04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2113

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

167

Haripura( Contd. )

168

169

170

1P1

172

173

2P1

Gangadiya

Adalwada

181

3P3

4/A

181

4/B

181

23P2

181

23P3

182

11P3

182

11P2

202

182

2/C

182

2/B

182

2/A/P2

182

2/A/P1

182

5/A

182

5/B

3/2

182

Lotana

115

116

124

125

127

126

128

----

137

12-145687

514 G1 /2006-17

89 0

57 0

99 0

33 0

02 0

32 0

15 0

90 0

41 0

20 0

38 0

78 0

69 0

31 0

40 0

73 0

43 0

09 0

49 0

37 0

33 0

41 0

12 0

13 0

05 0

33 0

56 0

39 0

75 0

12 2114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

3 1

Lotana( Contd. )

2P1

2P2

149

Sadar

150

151

-2

153

155

154

183

182

181

179

6/1P

6/2

5/2P

2/2

180

264

Mudhela

266

265

267

271

365

364

348

345

350

345

344

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ]

6 4

88 0

09 0

10 0

96 0

46 0

14 0

83 0

56 0

50 0

58 0

01 0

68 0

80 0

76 0

29 0

26 0

43 0

42 0

15 0

47 0

16 0

31 ง

42 0

17 0

99 0

27 0

96 0

83 0

75 0

96 0

34 0

02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2115

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

3 1

335

Mudhela ( Contd .)

336

330

332

326

327

7P Singaniya

114

10P2 Khakhariya

114

10P6

114

10P5

114

5P1

114

3P1

114

3P2

114

1 4

6 0

30 0

63 0

01 0

12 0

77 0

27 0

82 0

62 0

44 0

97 0

86 0

60 0

84 0

86 0

23.

67 0

55 [ F. No. R-2501 1 /5/2006- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 965.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 6-8-2005 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ . संख्या 2756 तारीख 02-08-2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील- दाहोद , जिल्ला दाहोद , राज्य गुजरात में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , वडोदरा 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 ता . 07-09-2005 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गईथी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार कोरिर्पोट दे दी है; और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ; अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि मे विनिर्दष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है । 2116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( i) ) और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन कीइस तारीख से निहित होगा 1

अनुसूची

जिला:दाहोद

तालुका: दाहोद

उप-खण्डसं.

गाँव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं-खण्डसं.

रोझाम

126

-AR B

109

जेकोत

रामपुरा

5A1

5A2

काली तलाइ

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर

एयर

हेक्टर

20.

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

3 काली तलाइ ( जारी )

चापरी

1--BA-

180

175

174

ABC--

172

12 बोरवानी

141

143

...

140

142

खरोड

403

402

301

102

301

103

301

104

उसरवाण

135

140

143

144

145

166

2117 4

87 2118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20 , 1927

3 1

उसरवाण (जारी )

168

167

165

163

162

158

157

285

उकारडी

283

284

282

281

280

294

344

345

356

360

359

112

1 राजपुर

112

111

117

108

107

116

105

106

1 खरेडी

1A+1B

119

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2119

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

3 खरेडी ( जारी)

118

116

115

125

214

217

नानी रणापुर

131

122

123

111

109

108

नवागॉव

441

425

440

439

438

437

436

435

434

433

431

432

480

399

397

395

394

391

392

1 4

61-

49 2120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

1 नवागाँव (जारी )

384

386

378

375

376

348

335

336

348

347

345

346

321

322

284

265

264

265

269

270

267

268

247

249

246

237

236

तानाचीया

267

268

270

269

102

100

101

127

134

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

73 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2121

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

3 तानाचीया(जारी )

135

136

123

हीमाला

123

112

110

108

109

106

104

105

218

219

220

कोटडाखुर्द

258

रीचार्दा

244

243

242

246

242

237

233+248

235

234

233

228

232

514 GI/2006-18

0 :

37.

000035

53slation

010 0 09

ee to ( 1 ) 0

02 64

2769 reini

0885

13 27

23 2122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

3 रीचार्दा (जारी )

231

229

202

2/2

202

3/2+3/1

203

176

169

168

166

164

163

उदार

2/14

2/13

2/4

खेंग

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

[फा. सं . आर-25011/6/2006-ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिग

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 965.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 2756 dated 02-08-2005 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) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule Tehsil -Dahod , Dist . Dahod , State Gujarat , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Gujarat by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. in

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on 07-09-2005.

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) ]

2123

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed 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 direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting the Central Government, vests from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian oil corporation limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Dist:- Dahod Tehsil :- Dahod

Survey/Block NO . Sub -Div. No.

Nameof Village

Rozam

126

109 Jekot

Rampura

5A1

5A2

State:- Gujarat

Area Hectare

Are Sq.mtr.

73 2124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 27

3 Kali Talai

68-

Kali Talai (Contd. )

Chapari

-BA-

180

175

174

172

ABC-1

172

141

Borvani

143

140

142

Kharod

403

402

102

301

103

301

104

301

135

Usarvan

140

143

144

145

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

04 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2125

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

166

Usarvan( Contd.)

168

167

165

163

162

158

157

Ukardi

285

283

284

282

281

280

294

344

345

356

360

359

112

1 Rajpur

112

111

117

108

107

116

105

106

1 Kharedi

1A+1B

119

52.

0 2126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

3 1

119

2 Kharedi ( Contd . )

118

116

115

125

214

217

Nani Ranapur

131

122

123

111

109

108

441

Navagam

425

440

439

438

437

436

435

434

433

431

432

480

399

397

395

394

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

20 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2127

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

391

1 Navagam(Contd . )

392

384

386

378

375

376

348

335

336

348

347

345

346

321

322

264

265

264

265

269

270

267

288

247

249

246

237

238

267

Tanachiya

268

270

269

102

100

101

127

60.

29 2128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

Tanachiya ( Contd. )

134

135

136

123

Himala

-32

123

112

110

108

109

106

104

105

218

219

220

Kotada Khurd

2435--

Richarda

258

244

243

242

246

242

9-7 9 7

237

233+248

235

234

233

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

27.

27 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2129

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

228 Richarda( Contd. )

232

231

229

202

203

176

169

168

166

164

183

Udar

45 Kheng

4 3

2/2

3/2+3/1

13.

2/14

2/13

2/4

[F. No. R-25011 /6/ 2006- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 966.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 6-8-2005 मे प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक स मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ . संख्या 2757 तारीख 02-08-2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूचि तहसील- बारीया , जित्ला दाहोद , राज्य गुजरात में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , वडोदरा 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 ता . 07-09-2005 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

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

514 Gl /2006-19 2130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20,927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में 'उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;

अनुसूची

जिला: दाहोद

तालुका: बारीया

उप-खण्ड सं.

गाँव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं - खण्ड सं.

नाथुडी

124

रामा

126

128

129

144

147

173

174

175

303

कालीयागोटा

320

1P2

229

1P4

229

231

311

232

234

218

215

214

170

175

174

173

179

180

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मिटर

हेक्टर

एयर

7.1

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2131

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

215

रेबारी

215

214

213

137

135

131

130

129

P.1

128

102

101

106

107

105

109

110

P2 मोती-झारी

1.7

12.머 1

208

209

207

206

198

-10

198

197

196

195

194

192

53 2132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

193

मोती-झारी (जारी)

पीपलोद

473

474

580

579

285

594

609

593

639

598

241

483

239

240

237

236

235

297

पंचेला

100

130

127

128

3P2

3P1

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

[फा. सं. आर-25011/6/2006- ओ.आर.-[ ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 966.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 2757 dated 02-08-2005 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) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule Tehsil -Baria , Dist. Dahod , State Gujarat , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Gujarat by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. M

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on 07-09-2005.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2133

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired .

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

And further in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby direct that the right of user in the sald land shall instead of vesting the Central Government , vests from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian oil corporation limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Dist:- Dahod Tehsil : - Bariya

Survey/ Block NO . Sub-Div . NO.

Nameof Village

Nathudi

Rama

124

126

128

129

144

147

173

174

175

303

Kaliyagota

320

229

1P2

229

1P4

231

311

232

234

218

215

214

State: -Gujarat

Are

Area Hectare

Sq.mtr.

0 2134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

170

P4 Rebari(Contd.,

175

174

173

179

180

Rebari

215

214

213

137

135

131

130

129

128

102

101

106

107

105

109

110

Moti -Zari

208

209

207

206

198

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

13.

21 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2135

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

3 Moti -Zari ( Contd.)

198

197

196

195

194

192

193

473

Piplod

474

580

579

285

594

609

593

639

598

241

483

239

240

237

236

235

297

Panchela

100

130

127

128

3P2

3P1

P2 4

57-

[F. No. R-25011/6/2006-0.R. -1 ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

2136

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 967.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 6-8-2005 मे प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ. संख्या 2758तारीख 02-08-2005 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील - लीमखेडा , जिल्ला दाहोद , राज्य गुजरात में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , वडोदरा 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 ता . 07-09-2005 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: दाहोद

राज्य : गुजरात

तालुका: लीमखेडा

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड सं.

गाँव का नाम

सर्वेक्षण सं -खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मिटर

हेक्टर एयर

प्रतापपुरा

74 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

2 प्रतापपुरा ( जारी )

P2 पानीया

137

136

1+2

131

130

125

पलाली

119

P 4

119

P22

119

P17

119

P18

119

P23

P2 अंधारी

199

खुंधा

207

180

179

A 514 GI /2006-20

2137 4

12.

0 2138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

3 1

B खुंधा( जारी )

2+3

1+3

172

1+3

42315-10

7+3 20

5+8+9

P5 खीरखेरी

237

3+4

1+2P/1 +4+ 5

1P2

174

P12

172

171

6+8+10

171

173

2+3+4

173

169

168

167

1P2

165

1P1+1P3

165

161

159

218

174

156

174

धाधरा

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

05 .

, 0

2.6

0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

2139 1

6 वालुंन्दी

पोलीसीमळ

81 टांटाधाटी

[फा. सं . आर-25011/6/2006- ओ.आर.- 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 967.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 2758 dated 02-08-2005 under sub section ( 1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule in Tehsil -Limkheda , Dist. Dahoc , State Gujarat, for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Gujarat by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on 07-09-2005.

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 is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to thisnotification should be acquired .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification ishereby 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 direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting the Central Government , vests from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian oil corporation limited free from all encumbrances .

2140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 2927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

Dahod

Dist:-

Tehsil : - Limkheda

Nameof Village Survey/Block NO . Sub-Division NO.

3 1

Pratappura

---

1234 1

-12-머

Pania

137

136

131

2632721 P2

130

125

Palall

119

P14

119

P22

119

P.17

119

P18

119

P23

Andhari

State:- Gujarat

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

11 0

80 0

69 0

09 0

98 0

58 0

63 0

28 0

24 0

52 0

66 0

96 0

09 0

89 0

57 0

90 0

87 0

42 0

85 2

78 0

11 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2141

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

Andhari (Contd. )

-2머

21112

Kundha

199

207

180

-----

179

1657

172

AB21-214381613--42315-102

7+3 4

24 2142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 2927

6 Kundha (Contd . )

5+8+9

Khirkheri

237

3+4

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

1+2P/1+4+5

1P2

174

P12

172

171

6+8+10

171

173

2+3+4

169

168

167

165

1P2

165

1P1+1P3

161

159

218

174

156

BB2 P2

174

Dhadhara

Valundi

Policimal

0 2143 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

Policimal ( Contd. )

Tantaghati

[F. No. R-25011/6/2006-O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च, 2006

का. आ. 968. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 1183 दिनांक 29.03.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के निरमगाम - चाकसू, चाकसू- पानीपत एवं चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों की संवर्द्धन परियोजना हेतु, अपरिष्कृत तेल का परिवहन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए, विरमगाम (गुजरात राज्य) से चाकसू (राजस्थान राज्य) होते , हुए पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तालूका देत्रोज रामपुरा , जिला अहमदाबाद गुजरात राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 25.05.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गुजरात, ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 2144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20, 1927

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिला : अहमदाबाद

तालूका : देत्रोज रामपुरा

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

उप-खण्ड सं .

एयर वर्गमीटर

हेक्टेयर

6 नदीशाला

314

रुदातल

113

[फा. सं. आर-25011/9/2001- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 968. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 1183 dated the 29.03.2005 issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of user in Lond ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka : Detroj Rampura , District : Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat , specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Chaksu , Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project .

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 25.05.2005;

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

Andwhereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;

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

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

2145 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927.

SCHEDULE

District : Ahmedabad

State: Gujarat Taluka : Detroj Rampura

Area

Survey No. Sub -Division No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 1

314

Nadishala

113

16 Rudatal

[F. No. R-25011/9/2001 - O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 969. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का . आ. 1185 दिनांक 29.03.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम - चाकसू, चाकसू- पानीपत एवं चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों की संवर्द्धन परियोजना हेतु, अपरिष्कृत तेल का परिवहन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए, विरमगाम (गुजरात राज्य) से चाकसू (राजस्थान राज्य) होते हुए पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तालूका चाणस्मा, जिला पाटण गुजरात राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 25.05.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गुजरात, ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचित में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

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

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

514 Gl /2006-21 2146

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUN 20 , 1927

अनुसूची

जिला : पाटण

राज्य : गुजरात तालूका : चाणस्मा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

मुलथाणीया

[फा. सं . आर-25011/18/2001- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 969.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 1185 dated the 29.03.2005 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 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka : Chanasma , District : Patan in the State of Gujarat , specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oilfrom Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam Chaksu , Chaksu Panipat & Chaksu Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project .

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 25.05.2005;

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

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;,

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

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

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2147 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन- 20, 1927

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Chanasma

District : Patan

State: Gujarat

Area

Name of the Village Survey No. Sub -Division No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

Multhaniya

[ F. No. R- 25011/18/2001 - O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secу .

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 970.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 1184 दिनांक 29.03.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप -धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम - चाकसू, चाकसू- पानीपत एवं चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों की संवर्द्धन परियोजना हेतु, अपरिष्कृत तेल का परिवहन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए, विरमगाम (गुजरात राज्य) से चाकसू (राजस्थान राज्य) होते हुए पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तालूका बेचराजी , जिला महेसाणा गुजरात राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 25.05.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप -धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, गुजरात. ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 2148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20 , 1927

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

अनुसूची

जिला : महेसाणा

तालूका : बेचराजी

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं. उप-खण्ड सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

रांतेज

242

[फा. सं . आर-25011/18/2001-ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 970. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 1184 dated the 29.03.2005 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 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka Becharaji , District : Mehsana in the State of Gujarat , specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujaratto Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam Chaksu , Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project .

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 25.05.2005;

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

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;

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

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2149 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

SCHEDULE

District : Mehsana

State: Gujarat Taluka: Becharaji

Area

Survey No. Sub -Division No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

242

Rantej

[F. No. R-2501 1 /18/2001 - O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 971.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 1186 दिनांक 29.03.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, सलाया-मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम चाकसू, चाकसू- पानीपत एवं चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों की संवर्द्धन परियोजना हेतु, अपरिष्कृत तेल का परिवहन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए, विरमगाम (गुजरात राज्य) से चाकसू (राजस्थान राज्य) होते हुए पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तालूका वडगाम , जिला बनासकांठा गुजरात राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 25.05.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, गुजरात, ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN 20,2927

अनुसूची

जिला : बनासकांठा

राज्य : गुजरात तालूका : वडगाम

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

उप-खण्ड सं .

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

तेनीवाडा

169

1पी 1

[फा. सं . आर-25011/18/2003-ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 971. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 1186 dated the 29.03.2005 issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof user in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka : Vadgam , District : Banaskantha in the State of Gujarat , specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Chaksu , Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project .

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 25.05.2005;

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

And whereas , the Central Government, after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;

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

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2151 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

SCHEDULE

District : Banaskantha

Taluka: Vadgam

State: Gujarat

Area Nameof the Village Survey No. Sub - Division No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

Teniwada

169

1P1

[F. No. R-25011/18/2001 - O.R.- I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 972.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 1187 दिनांक 29.03.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर , सलाया-मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- चाकसू, चाकसू- पानीपत एवं चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों की संवर्द्धन परियोजना हेतु, अपरिष्कृत तेल का परिवहन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए, विरमगाम (गुजरात राज्य) से चाकसू (राजस्थान राज्य) होते हुए पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तालूका पालनपुर, जिला बनासकांठा गुजरात राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 25.05.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, गुजरात, ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप -धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 2152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUN20, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिला : बनासकांठा

तालूका : पालनपुर

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

उप-खण्ड सं .

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

490

पालनपुर

[फा. सं. आर-25011/18/2001-ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 972.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 1187 dated the 29.03.2005 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof user in Land ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka Palanpur , District : Banaskantha in the State of Gujarat, specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam Chaksu , Chaksu - Panipat & Chaksu - Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project .

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 25.05.2005;

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

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired;

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

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

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2153 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

SCHEDULE

District: Banaskantha

Taluka Palanpur

State: Gujarat

Area

Survey No. Sub - Division No.

Name of the Village

Hectaré Are Sq.mtr .

490

65 Palanpur

[F. No. R-25011/18/2001 - O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 10 मार्च , 2006

का. आ. 973.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के का. आ. 1188 दिनांक 29.03.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- चाकसू, चाकसू-पानीपत एवं चाकसू- मथुरा सेक्शनों की संवर्द्धन परियोजना हेतु, अपरिष्कृत तेल का परिवहन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए, विरमगाम (गुजरात राज्य) से चाकसू (राजस्थान राज्य) होते हुए पानीपत (हरियाणा राज्य) तक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तालूका अमीरगढ़ , जिला बनासकांठा गुजरात राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 25.05.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, गुजरात, ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

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

514 GI /2006-22 2154

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH , 200 HALGUN 20, 1927

अनुसूची

जिला : बजासकांठा

राज्य गुजरात तालूका : अमीरगढ

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वे सं.

उप-खण्ड सं .

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

6 1

डकबालगढ

पी 2

03 98

पी 5

[फा. सं. आर-25011 / 18 / 2001-3 आर.

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सुचित्र

New Delhi , the 10th March , 2006

S. O. 973. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 1188 dated the 29.03.2005 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 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Taluka Amirgadh , District : Banaskantha in the State of Gujarat , specified in the schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for in plementing the Augmentation of Viramgam Chaksu , Chaksu Panipat & Chaksu Mathura sections of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System Project.

And whereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 25.05.2005;

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

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of ser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this Notification should be acquired:

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

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

SCHEDULE

District : Banaskantha

Taluka Amirgadh

State: Gujarat

Area Nameof the Village

Survey No. Sub - Division No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

6P2

Iqbalgadh

5P5

[F. No. R-25011 /18/2001- O.R. - 1 ]

S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

2155 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2006

the promotion order dtd . 30-12-1987 in respect of Sh . Nathu Lal , AG - III is legal and justified ? If not , what relief he is entitled to ? "

का. आ. 974.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 5 /2001- आई आर ( सी-II ) ]

पी० सी० भारद्वाज , डैस्कअधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi . the 13th February, 2006

S.O. 974. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/ 2001) of the Central Govt. Industrial -Tribunal - cum - Labour Court . Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of FCU, Ansal Bhawan. Food Corporation of India, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-2006.

[No. L- 22012/5/2001 - IR(C- II) ]

P. C. BHARDWAJ, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

The trade union's case in brief is that Sri Nathu Lal AG- III ( Depot ) was promoted by the opposite party No. 1 vide order No. 168/87 dtd . 30-12-87 from the post ofAG- III (D)-to AG- II ( Depot ) .The opposite party No. 2 did not released the aforesaid promotion on the sole ground that the workman was involved in the vigilance casc. It is admitted fact that the workman was served with the charge sheet No. V& S/4 ( 1170) /RO- LKO/ 84/ 198 dtd. 5-5-86 which was ended with the order dtd. 14-7-93 imposing a penalty ofreduction lowest stage in the pay scale ofAG - III (Depot ) trade union's case is that the said order dtd. 14-7-93 was challenged by the trade union before Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court . Kanpur which was registered as case No. 7/95 . By the award the Tribunal set aside the order dated 14-7-93 with all consequential benefits which include the promotion to the post of AG - Il from 31- 12-87 alongwith all consequential benefits . Award dtd . 21- 7-97 have been inmplemented by the Food Corporation of India but promotion dtd. 30-12-87 was not given to the workman for promotion to the post of AG- II . The trade union has stated that the workman was entitled to the promotion w.e.f. 31-12-87 alongwith all consequential benefits. It has therefore been prayed by the trade union thatthe opposite party be directed to release the promotion of the workman for the Post of AG - II ( D) w.e.f. 31-12-87 alongwith all consequential benefits .

5 . SHRIKANT SHUKLA . Presiding Officer

1. D. No. 136/2001

I. D. No : 22012 / 5/2001 - IR( C - II) dtd.: 2-8-2001

BETWEEN :

The State Secretary

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh

5/6 Habibulla Estate, Hazratganj .

Lucknow ( U.P. )

AND

The Zonal Manager ( North ) FCU . Ansal Bhawan Kasturba Gandhi Marg. New Delhi - 110001 The Sr. Regional Manager Food Corporation of India 5/6 Habibulla Estate .Hazratganj .

Lucknow

AWARD

The Government of India. Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer . CGIT -cum - Labour Court , Lucknow:

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Lucknow in not implementing

The opposite party have filed the written statement by which they have denied the claim of the workman. Firstly on the ground of delay. It is admitted by the opposite party that initially promotion order dtd . 30-12-87 was passed by the appropriate authority which was conditional i.c. subject to clearance of vigilance case/disciplinary proceedings pending and its verification prior to release of such promotion order . The said promotion order was cancelled by the order dtd. 15-4-88 and 26-4-88 and the workman Sri Nathu Lal was reverted back to the original post as he was found in vigilance case. The pendency of the case before Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court. Kanpur is admitted . however, the opposite party has submitted that the Tribunal has simply allowed all difference of wages on the grounds that punishment order does not exists whereas the order is silent towards quashing of punishment order or it being set aside. Thus there are all reasons to believe that except for payment of difference in wages for the punishment period the punishment order remained intact without any specific finding against it. It is further submitted that the workman despite being award of the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour -Court . Kanpur being silent on the issuc of punishment had neither challanged the 2156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

same before the higher authorities nor have sought for any review of the said, this has become final against him. However , the opposite parties being aggrieved by the order had challenged the same before Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad . Lucknow Bench , Lucknow by way of writ petition No. 6990 of 1997 and the same is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court . It is further submitted that the workman Sri Nathu Lal had although challenged the penalty order did . 14-7-93 before the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Kanpur had not given any specific relief to the workman in either setting aside of quashing of punishment order which still stands beside the matter being already subjudicè and under challenge before the High Court . It is further submitted that opposite parties in the absence of any stay order had complied and implemented the operative portion of order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court . Kanpur dtd . 21-7-97 towards payment of difference of wages . The said compliance/ implementation had been made in few spirits and bonafide intention of the opposite parties . Sri Nathu Lal can neither seek nor entitled for any such promotion to AG - II (D ) on virtue of the order dtd . 30-12-87 . It is further sumbitted that Sri Nathu Lal is not entitled to seek any such relief towards promotion and claim statement needs to be dismissed .

The workman has filed rejoinder wherein trade union has stated that promotion order was not released by the opposite party No. 2 on the sole ground of involvement of the workman in the vigilance case . Involvement of the workman was due to issue of illegal charge sheet dtd . 5-5-86. The said charge sheet was finally set aside by Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court . Kanpur vide award dtd . 21-7-97 in I.D. Case No. 7/95 and the opposite party No. I ordered for implementation ofthe aforesaid award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court. Kanpur and pay all dues in consequence of the implementation of the award but failed to clear the promotion which was withheld due to pendency of charge shcet and penalty order therefrom as such there is no delay in moving the claim before Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C) . Lucknow in the year 2000. Thus there is no delay. It is also submitted by the trade union that there is no charge slicet pending on the date of promotion of workman i.e. 30-12-87 as such there was no legal and valid reason for non release of promotion . It is not denied that the opposite party did filed writ petition against the award. However, it is alleged that mere filing of writ petition against the award does not amount of stay of the award. Award is still enforceable . It does not amount to subjudice . No benefit can be stopped in such a situation . The workman is fully entitled for the relief claim ;

The trade union has filed photo copies of the followingdocuments :

1. Office order dtd. 4-4-88

2 Office order dtd . 26-8-88

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 3. Charge sheet dtd. 5-5-86

4. Order dated 14-7-93

5. Notification dtd. 7-5-97 Govt . of India alongwith copy of awarddtd . 21-7-97 of CGIT-cum Labour Court,Kanpur.

6. Letter of workman to Sr. Regional Manager, FCI , Lucknow alongwith Order dtd. 20-10-2000, 7. Provisional Seniority list of AG III ( D ) as on 21-12-82 .

8. Provisional Seniority list of AG - I ( D ) as on 31-12-2001 .

Opposite party has not filed any documents evidence insupport of their case.

case . Parties have not produced any oral evidence in the Representative of the opposite party is discontinued to appearing in the court for the last 4 proceedings i.e. 6-10-05, 14-11-05 , 18-12-05 and 23-1-06. Opposite party's representative have also not turned up today. Therefore it is believed that opposite party does not want to put force any argument in the case .

It isadmitted fact that initial promotion order did . 30-12-87 was passed by the appropriate authority of the opposite party. It is also admitted fact that subsequently by order dtd . 15-4-88 and 26-4-88 the promotion order is given effect. Photo copy of both the orders on record i.e. paper No. C -23 and C- 23 /2. From the perusal of the above document it is evident that official Sri Nathu Lal who promoted as adhoc basis as AG- II ( D ) vide office order No. 168/87 dtd . 30-12-87 are reverted to the post of AG - III (D)with immediate effect as they have been reported to be involved in vigilance case by Zonal Vigilance Division.

Itis also admitted fact that worker was charge sheeted vide Regional Manager letter No. V& S /4 / 170/RO - LKO 84- 1981 dtd . 5-5-86 . The charge was that Sri Nathu Lal AG III (D)while posted at Bangarmau during the year 1983 failed to maintain absolute integrity devotion to duty and also failed to serve the organisation honestly and faithfully in as much as connivance with Sri Tika Ram , AG - I ( D ) and Transport Contractor misappropriated 260 bags i.e. 260- 79-000 Qtls of wheat stock on 4-2-83 . The stocks were withdrawn from SWC Godown , but same were never despatched to FSD. Unnao though the weight check memo and other records were prepared by him with out showing the truck No. and gate pass etc. with malafide intention.

After disciplinary proccedings following punishment order was passed by disciplinary authority on 14-7-93:

"Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation , 56 of FCI ( Staff) Regulations , 1971 is constrained to review the decision already taken for imposing major penalty and imposes following major penalty which will meet the end ofjustice .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

"Reduction to the lowest stage of the time scale of payof AG- III (D) for a period of 5 years from 14-6-88 to 13-6-93 . After expiry of this period Sri Nathu Lal AG- III (D) will earn regular increment w.e.f. 1-1-94 from first stage of scale of pay of AG- III (D) " The period of deemed suspension from 14-6-88 till issue of this order will be treated as period not spent on duty and adjusted against the leave of the kind due and he will not be entitled to any further payment over and above the subsistance allowance already been paid to him for the period of his suspension.

Sd/-

K.K. SINHA , Sr. Regional Manager Aggrieved by the punishment order trade union espoused the cause and ultimately government referred the case for adjudication which registered as I.D. No. 7/95 between Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh, Lucknow Vs. Regional Manager, FCI , Lucknow, Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Kanpur passed the award on 21-7-97 and held as under;

"In this way I am of the view that charge against the concernedworkman is not proved at all . Accordingly it is held that there was no collusion between the concernedworkman and Tikaram in misappropriation of260 bags as such he has been wrongly punished . " Accordingly my award is that punishment of concerned may reduction to the lowest stage of time scale ofpost ofAG- III (D) for a period of 5 years from 14-6-88 to 13-6-93 is not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman will be entitled for all difference ofwages on the premises that such punishment order does not exists.

Sd/-

B.K. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer Opposite party has submitted in para 8 is as under ;

"That in reply to the contents of para 8 of the claim statement, it is submitted that the opposite parties in the absence of any stay order had complied and implemented the operative portion of order passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur dtd, 21-7-97 towards payment of difference of wages . The said compliance/ implementation had been made in few spirits and bonafide intention of the opposite party.

Trade union's case is only to the extent that the workerwas deprived ofhis promotion only due to the above case wherein the workman was punished and award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kanpur is that the charge sheet against the workman is not provedat all and he held that the workman shall be entitled to difference of wages on the premises that such punishment order does not exist . However , it is clear that impugned order is dtd. 14-7-93.

2157

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

The opposite party has submitted in written statement that Sri Nathu Lal although challenged the penalty order dt . 14-7-93 before the CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur but the tribunal had not given any specific relief to Sri Nathu Lal in either setting aside of washing of punishment order which still stands. It is also submitted in para 7 of the written statement that Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court has simply allowed ofdifference ofwages on the ground that punishment order does not exists whereas order is silent towards quashing the punishment order or it being set aside . Thus , there are all reasons to believe that except for payment of difference inwages for the punishment period the punishment order remained intact without any specific finding against it.

When the charge stands not proved as is evident from the award and when its found in award that such punishment order does not exist meaning thereby the punishment order is set aside. The punishment order does not remain intact as the opposite party has tried to allege in written statement. The language used in the award is specifically clear. It is also admitted by the opposite party that in absence of any stay order , opposite party has complied and implemented operative portion of the order passedby the CGIT- cum-Labour Court , Kanpur dtd . 21-7-97. It is not understood as to why the worker has not been given promotion in Grade of AG- II (D ) once the promotion was withlield as a result of the said vigilance case .

Opposite party has tried to alleged in written statement that the promotion order was stood cancelled by order dtd . 15-4-88 and 26-4-88 but the order of opposite party has not been filed any documnetary evidence in support of the said cancellation . On the other hand the trade union has filed the said documents . There is no mention of cancellation of promotion order. On careful reading of the said two letters it is found from the said orders Sri Nathu Lal was reverted to the post of AG - III (D) . The representative of the trade union has argued that worker did not assume the Charge on promotion post and unless one assumes the charge on the promotion post is difficult to believe that such person can be reverted .

In the present case the order sheet dtd . 9-4-03 is relevant for the facts of the case which is reproduced as under: 9-2-2003

पुकार लगी उपस्थित श्री टी० बी० सिंह वास्ते श्रमिक। श्री जी० जी० बनर्जी वास्ते प्रबंधन पक्ष ।

श्रमिक द्वारा कागज सं० A/ 19 दाखिल हुआ। उभय पक्षों को स्वीकार है कि श्रमिक को प्रोमोशन 30-12-87 को ग्रेड ए० जी III से एजी - II डिपो में हुआ था परन्तु विभागीय कार्यवाही की रिपोर्ट लंबित होने के कारण प्रोमोशन कार्यरूप में परिणित नहीं किया गया तत्पश्चात् प्रबन्धक द्वारा कर्मचारी को विभागीय कार्यवाही में पारित आदेश 14-7-93 के द्वारा उसी ग्रेड -3 के न्यूनतम स्तर पर जाने का आदेश दिया गया । उस आदेश को कामगार द्वारा सी ० जी० आई ० टी० कानपुर 2158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)

trade union espoused the separate cause when that vigilance case an end by a valid award of the CGIT - cuin- Labour Court , Kanpur .

It is true that there was no question about withhelding orrelease of promotion before the Presiding Officer of CGIT- cum- Labour Court , Kanpur when the legality of the punishment order is adjudicated upon . Once that order is deemed not in existence , the worker has come out with a case of promotion .

में चुनौती दी गई । जिसकी आई ०डी० संख्या -7/ 95, भारतीय खाद्य निगम कर्मचारी संघ बनाम भारतीय खाद्य निगम है । सी. जी. आई . टी. द्वारा 21-7-97 के आदेश द्वारा विभागीय आदेश की कार्यवाही को निरस्त कर दिया गया है । जिससे व्यथित होकर भारतीय खाद्य निगम ने भा० उच्च्च न्यायालय , खण्डपीठ लखनऊ में रिट दाखिल की है । जिसकी सं. 6990/97 , एफ. सी. आई. बनाम नत्थूलाल आदि है । यह भी स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि उक्त याचिका का निर्णय अभी नहीं हुआ है । हालांकि याचिका में कोई स्थगन आदेश पारित किया गया । हालांकि प्रबन्धकों ने आदेश के अनुसार पूरे लाभ जो सी. जी. आई. टी. के निर्णय के परिणाम स्वरूप मिलने थे, उनके कामगार को दिए हैं, परन्तु प्रोन्नति नहीं दे रहे हैं । मूल प्रश्न भात्र यह उठाया गया कि विभागीय कार्यवाही के दण्डादेश जिसे सी. जी. आई. टी. द्वारा सैटेसाइट किया गया और जिसकी याचिका अभी लंबित है और इसी कारण प्रोन्नति देना संभव नहीं है ।

From the arguments of the representative of the trade union and pleadings ofthe parties I come to the conclusion that the case of promotion was not before the Presiding Officer in the previous 1.D. case . Therefore it is irrelevant to say that the award is silent on the subject . The Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court . Kanpur of its own without pleadings cannot give award in respect ofpromotion .

अतः जहां तक तथ्यों का प्रश्न है कि उभय पक्ष में कोई विवाद नही हैं मात्र विधिक बिन्दु . का निर्णय किया जाना है कि-

" क्या भा० उच्च न्यायालाय में प्रबन्धकों की याचिका के लंबित रहने के दौरान प्रोन्नति कामगार को दी जा सकती है ? "

इसका भार कर्मचारी पर हैं । अतः निश्चित दि ० 6-5-2003 वास्ते बहस दस्तावेज जो उभय पक्ष न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं वह एक दूसरे से स्त्रीकार, अस्वीकार करा कर दाखिल करें ।

Now second question has been raised by the opposite party is that the matter is delayed and highly time barred and as such is not maintainable . It is matter of fact that the worker was punished by order dtd . 14-7-93, and the worker raised the dispute and the award was passed on 21-7-97 . Thereafter the worker initiated proceeding promotion before Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) . Therefore I am of the considered opinion that there is no unreasonable delay in espousing the case of filing the claim . I do not agree with the opposite party that the statement of claim is not maintainable .

The next objection taken by the opposite party is thatas the writ petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court therefore the matter is subjudice . It is nobody's case that there is any stay order in respect of present I.D. Learned representative of the trade union has argued unless there is stay obtained by the opposite party the mere fact the writpetition is filed. will not entitle to opposite party to non comply the order of CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Kanpur . He has also argued that an one hand the opposite party implemented the award on the other hand they are denying lawful promotion of the worker. He has also drawn iny attention in II ( 2004 ) CPJ 12 ( SC ) Supreme Court of India . Ghaziabad Development AuthorityVs. Balbir Singh . In the para 26 of the said case law we find following narration :

After perusal of the written statement it comes out that since the worker has not given order of his promotion by the CGIT - cum- Labour Court . Kanpur in the previous dispute i.e. I.D. 7/95 then it will amount that tribunal has declined to pass the award in his favour about promotion . Now the question is whether this case for promotion was agitated in the earlier dispute if not then there could be no award in respect of the promotion. The issue before the CGIT- cum - Labour Court . Kanpur in earlier ID was as to whether the action of the employer by imposing the penalty vide order did . 14-7-93 on Sri Nathu Lal was legal orjustified. If not to what relief workman was entitled . There was no reference before the tribunal in respect of implementing of promotion order dtd . 30-12-87 . I have also perused the copy ofclaim statement filed by the representative of the trade union which is paper No. C - 31 . In the said statement of claim the matter of promotion was not agitated no any relief was claimed. Only the punishment order was challenged and consequential benefits or arrears of wages was claimed . No doubt the worker ought to have clubbed all reliefs which he is entitled to claim in the statement of claim. in the ordinary court of law i.e. Civil Court the litigant cannot claim any relief which he ought to have claimed in the previous suit on the alleged cause of action ommits it .

"Before we part with this order , we have to mention thatmany parties complained to us that even the undisputed amounts had not been paid to them. This was disputed on behalf of the authorities . However, it is clear that the amounts were paid /deposited belatedly. We , therefore . clarify that unless there is a stay obtained from a higher Forum. the fact of filing of an Appeal/Revision will not entitled the authority to not comply with the order of the Forum."

The learned representative of the trade union has argued that it is not a civil suit . He has also argued that unless and untill he is exonerated of the punishment he could not have eclaimed for promotion. He has also argued that civil procedure Court is not applicable to the I.D. which are adjudicated under the I.D. Act . He has argued that

In the present case employee Sri Nathu Lal has been completely exonerated by the award of the Labour Court meaning thereby he is not found blame worthy and in the 2159 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

आसनसोल, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 80/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/419/1998- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] पी. सी. भारद्वाज , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th February, 2006 least and the charge has been found disproved by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Kanpur. In the circumstances I do not find any reason why the worker be not given the benefit of order no . 168/7 dt . 30-12-87 by which he was promoted as AG - III (D ) to AG- II (D) , as has been mentioned earlier the worker has not joined the post . of AG - II ( D) . There is no question of his reversion. There is no order of cancellation also . It is therefore believed that when the opposite party found him fit for promotion he was promoted by the order dtd.30-12-87. He has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post alongwith other benefits from the date on which he would normally be promoted but for disciplinary proceedings . There is no delay at the instance of the employee or the clearance of disciplinary proceedings .

S.O. 975. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 80 of 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- . Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Parascole Colliery of M / s . ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-2006.

[No. L-22012/419/ 1998 - IR(C -II ) ] P. C. BHARDWAJ, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The learned representative of the trade union has drawn my attention on the fact that date of birth of Sri Nathu Lal worker has mentioned in document C - 23 and C-23/2- is 1-1-46 meaning thereby he is likely to retire on 31-1-2006 after completion of60 years . Worker is, therefore, entitledto promotion from the date of order.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , ASANSOL PRESENT:

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer Reference No. 80 of 1999 PARTIES : Agent , Parascole Colliery of M/ s . E.C. Ltd.. Vrs . Asstt . General Secretary, Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union , Asansol , Burdwan . REPRESENTATIVES : For the management : Sri P.K. Das , Advocate . For the Union (workman) : Sri M. Mukherjee, Advocate Industry : Coal. Stare : West bengal . Dated 24-01-2006 . AWARD

Therepresentative of the worker has argued that the worker be given all consequential benefits about difference inback wages from 30-12-87 . In the circumstances I come to the conclusion that even after passing of the award in favour of the worker, worker shall not be able to work as AG- II ( D ) as award unless published can not be implemented. He has drawn my attention to 1993 SC L& S 387 Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others and has persuaded the court that that worker has beendeprived from his promotion for none of his fault and therefore he should be given benefit of back wages so that the worker may not suffer after the retirement. I have perused the case law cited by the representative . Worker has not work a single day on the post of AG- II . In the circumstances of the case it will be difficult to award wages right from 30-12-87 till date ofhis retirement. However, the worker will be entitled to notional increment year to year applicable to AG - II (D) benefits together with 50% of the differerice of wages on promotion post . The issue is answered in negative against the management and my award is that the worker shall be entitled to promotion on 31-12-87 onwards on the post of AG - II (D) and shall be entitled to annual increments together with differnce of wages from the post ofAG- III (D ) to AG- II (D) @ 50%.

Lucknow 30-1-2006

In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/419 / 1998- IR ( CM - II ) dated 07-07-1999 , has beenpleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication bythisTribunal .

SCHEDULE

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer . नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 975.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण

"Whether the action of the management of Parascole Colliery of M/ s . ECL in fixation of wages of Sh. Harbans Koyri , Underground Loader at the time ofconversion from piece rate to time rate during 1996 is legal and justified ?" 2160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

After having recieved the order No. L- 22012/419/ 1998 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 07-07-99 from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication a reference caseNo. 80 of 1999 was registered on 23-7-99/ 17-9-01 and an order to issue notices to the parties through the registered post was passed with a direction to appear in the court and file their written statements along with the documents in support of their case .

In pursuantto the notices issued through the registered post Sri P.K. Das , Advocate for the management and Sri M. Mukherjee , Advocate for the union appeared in the court and filed their respective written statement in support of their claims .

On perusal of the record it transpires that the case was fixed for filing the documents fixing 24-1-05 but nobody turned up to represent the union on the date fixed. It is further clear from the order sheets of the record that the union left taking any step on behalf of the workman concerned right from 24-1-05 to 24-1-06. The lawyer for the union also submitted that he has got no instruction from the side of the workman since then. In such prevailing facts and circumstances of the case it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending anymore . As such it ishereby

ORDERED

that let a " No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour, Govt . of India , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 976.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. एम. पी. डी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ थाः । [सं. एल-22012/560/1996- आई आर ( सी -11) ]

पी. सी. भारद्वाज, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 13th February, 2006 S.O. 976. ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. (No. 51 of 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.M.P.D.I. and their workınan, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-2006 .

[No. L -22012/560 / 1996 - IR( C - 11 ) ] P. C. BHARDWAJ , Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT :

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer Reference No. 51 of 1998 . PARTIES :

The Personnel Manager . C.M.P.D.I.. RI - 1 West End . G.T. Road, Asansol - 713 301 .

Vrs.

The Addl . Gencral Secretary, National Coal Workers Congress (NFITU) . M.G. Road . P.O. Ukhra , Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : None.

Industry :

For the Union ( workman ) : None. Coal . State : West bengal . Dated 04-01-2006.

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012 / 560 / 96 / IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 9-10-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of CMPDI . Asansol in denying regularisation of Sh . Nageshwar Mahato , Security Guard to the post of Drill Helper. Cat. II w.e.f. 1985 is justified ?" If not , what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

On having received the order No. L - 22012 / 560 /96- IR(CM- II ) dated 9-10-1998 of the aforesaid reference from the Ministry of Labour . Govt . of India, New Delhi for adjudication a reference case No. 51 of 1998 was registered on 20-10-1998 and an order to issued notices to the parties concerned through the registered post was passed with a direction to appear in the Court and file their respective written statement in support of their case along with the document required . In compliance to the said order notices were issued and in pursuant to the same Sri P. K. Das, Advocate for the management and Sri K. Chatterjee, Add1. General Secretary of the Union Appeared and filed their written statements .

From perusal of the record it transpires that both the parties had left taking any steps on their behalf sinee 10-2-2005 . It is further clear from the record that on [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2161

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

04-01-2006 the workman himself persosnally appeared in the Court and filed a petition serving the copy to the other side praying therein that he is not interested to proceed with the above case and a No Dispute Award may be passed . As such in the present facts, circumstances and in the light of the contention of the petition so filed by the workman himself it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more. Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED

that let a " NO DISPUTE AWARD " be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed off.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 977.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-02-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल-22012/399/1999- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

पी. सी. भारद्वाज, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th February, 2006 S.O. 977. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 27 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court. Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Madhusudanpur Colliery of M/ s . ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-02-2006.

[No. L-22012/399/ 1999 - IR ( C - II )] P. C. BHARDWAJ, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Sri Md. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . 27 OF 2000

PARTIES :

Agent . Madhusudanpur Colliery, Kajoragram, Burdwan.

Vrs .

Area Secretary. INMOSSA, Kajoragram , Burdwan.

514 G1/2006-23

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management Sri P.K. Das , Advocate For the Union : Sri B.N. Upadhaya .

(workman)

Area Secretary.

: State: West Bengal .

Industry: Coal

Dated the 5th January, 2006

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 399/99 /IR (C- II ) dated 29-02-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Madhusudanpur Colliery of M/ s . ECL in not accepting the date of birth recorded in the Mining Sirdarship certificate of Sh . Bipin Yadav, workman and not forwarding the dispute to Age Determination Committee for assessment of correct age is legal andjustified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Afterhaving received the order No. L- 22012/ 399 / IR (C- II) dated 29-2-2000 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication , a reference case No. 27 of 2000 was registered on 13-3-2000/ 12-10-01 and an order to issue notices through the registered,post to the respective parties was passed with a direction to appear and file their written statement along with the required documents in support of their respective claims . In pursuant to the said notices issued Sri P.K. Das . Advocate for the management and Sri B.N. Upadhaya , Area Secretary of the Union represertting the workman concerned appeared in the Court and both the parties filed their written statements in support of their respective claims .

On perusal of the record it transpires that on 16-11-04 the case was adjourned to 5-1-2005 for evidence atthe request of the union . It is further clear from the order sheets of the record that from the very next fixed date i.e. 5-1-2005 the union left taking any step in this case on behalf of the workman concerned . The union was given several adjournments and opportunities to appear and adduce evidence on its behalfbut to no effect . These all prevailing facts and circumstances go to show that the union is not at all interested to proceed with the case further. In such circumstances it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served. Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED

that let a " NO DISPUTE AWARD " be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the awardto the Ministry of Labour for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed off.

MD . SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii)] 2162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 / IALGUNA 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2006

th December 1993 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Food Corporation of India is justified in terminating the services of Shri K.B. Nagaraj , Part Time Sweeper from 27-7-91 ? Ifnot, what relief he is entitled to ? "

का. आर . 978.- औद्योगिक विवाट अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकार, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/1994 ) को प्रकाशित कालीको केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

सं. एल -22012/232/एफ/ 1993 - आई आर ( सी II ) ] पी. सी. भारद्वाज, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2006

2. The first party in his Claim Statement has contended that he was appointed as a Sweeper w.e.f. 13-1-1987 at a salary ofRs . 100/ - per month . In appreciation ofthe hard work, the Branch Manager of the Second Party recommended for the appointment of first party as a full time employee. Meanwhile , the first party passed SSLC and Junior typewriting . He was also doing typing work in addition to usual work . Therefore , his services were regularized w.e.f. 10-2-1988 and he was paid a salary of Rs. 300/- per month .

5.0 978.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67 of 994 ) ofthe Central Government Industriai Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their warkiran, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-20

No. L-22012/ 232 /F/ 1993 - IR ( C - II ) ]

P. C. BHARDWAJ , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. It is further contended that the first party was terminated from service w.e. f. 27-1-91 without assigning any reasons . But on his request he was reinstated w.c.f. 31-1-1991 . Again he was unceremoniously terminated from 27-7-1991 that he was continuously worked from the date ofhis initial appointment till his termination . Therefore , without assigning any reason and without conducting an enquiry his termination amountsto retrenchment, as the mandatory provisions are not followed he is entitled for all benefits such as reinstatement, back wages . continuity of service etc.

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

Dated 18th January, 2006

PRESES ?:

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 67/94

IIParty

IPariy

The Senior Regional

Shri F.B. Nagaraj .

Manager.

S/o Bagappa.

C.Kanakeri .

Food Corporation of India

H.O. Pallavi Complex.

4. The Management in their Counter Statement have denied the averments made by the first party, that he was appointed as a Sweeper w.e.f. 13-1-87 on a salary of Rs. 100/- per month . It is contended he was taken as a Part time Casual Labourer on daily rate basis as and when his service are required to work as a Sweeper as there was no sanctioned post of Sweeper at Davangere . They have further denied that he has been recommended by the Branch Manager to work as a full time employee. They have also shown their ignorance about passing of SSLC and typewriting examination by the workman and that he was doing typing work. The Management also denied the contention of the first party that his services were regularised w.e.f. 10-2-1988 and he was being paid a salary ofRs . 300 per month .

No. 110. Mission Road . Bangalore- 560027

10 Cross. Blumabi Colony, Davangere -377003

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section 2A of the Section10 of the ladustrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide eder No. L - 22012 / 232/F/ 93-1R ( C.II ) dated

5. It is further the case of the Management that the first party has been paid Rs . 10/-as a daily wages, whenever . his service are required . The contention that he has passed SSLC cannot be believed on the ground that he was a regular employee he cannot prosecute his studies unless a special permission is obtained . They have also denied the contention of termination , as the same will not arise as the first party was working as a Part time casual employee . The [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2163 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

continuity of service was also denied and his entitlement to the benefits treating his termination as retrenchment is also questioned.

6. It is lastly contended that the first party was a Casual Labourer getting the work whenever it was available , therefore , he cannot seek an order of reinstatement , back wages and other benefits .

he denied the suggestion that the first party worked continuously till he was removed on 27-7-1991 .In his further cross examination he admitted that wherever wages were paid to the workman they used to obtain his signature inthe payment receipts which are available with the District Office located at Shimoga or Bangalore . He admitted that after the removal of the first party workman one Smt . Hanumanthamma was entrusted the said work on transfer to their office.

7. During the course of trial , the management examined one witness as MWI and whereas the first party examined himself as WWI getting one document marked at Ex. WI . After the closure of the evidence , learned counsels for the respective parties were heard and my learned predecessor by his award dated 17-9-1999 rejected the reference. Aggrieved by this award the management approached the Hon'ble High court in Writ Petition No. 12848/2000 (L- TER) and his Lordship ofHon ble High Court while quashing the award passed by this tribunal remitted the matter back to this tribunal for reconsideration giving opportunity to both the parties to produce/adduce any evidence in support of their respective cases .

8. After the remand, the management further examined in chief MW1 and produced two documents at Ex . M1 and M2 namely the transfer order of one Smt. Hanumanthamma and general conditions of service . WWI also was further examined in chief and in his deposition got marked 47 wage slips (payment vouchers) atEx . W2 series .

10. Statement of first party ( WW1 ) in his examination chief relevant for the purpose is that he joined the management as a Sweeper on 13-1-1987 at its Davangere branch on a monthly wages of Rs . 100 and from February 1988 his services were regularized as a full time employee and his salary was raisedto Rs. 300 per month . He was doing the work of cleaning the premises and also attending of other works entrusted to him and he was also doing typing work during 1989 after having passed typing examination . He gave a representation at Ex. WI to make hisjob permanent and as per Ex . W1 ( A) the then Assistant Manager recommended his case . He worked continuously from 13-1-97 except on General holidays and Sundays . He was being paid wages by taking his signatures on vouchers being maintained by the management . He worked continuously till 27-7-1991 and thereafter he was stopped from working . In his further examination chief he referred to the above said 47 wage slips produced by the management stating that he was paid wages under those wage slips (payment vouchers) . He also said that he worked with the management for the month of November and December 1990 but those slips were not producedby the management. He stated that his services were also being taken by the management as a typist casually and the nature ofwork he was carrying was of a permanent one.

11. Learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that the first party has failed to produce any document to show that he was in the continuous service of the management for a period of 240 days and more immediately before his services were terminated . He contended that first party was a casual labourer working as a part time Sweeper for limited hours and therefore . there arose no question of compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act or conducting any enquiry against him before he was removed from service.

9. The Statement of MW1 relevant for the purpose in his examination chief is that first party was working asa casual labour in their Davangere branch being engaged as a casual Sweeper on 13-1-1987 . They were paying him daily wages whenever he worked and his daily wage varied from Rs . 10 to 12. He did not work continuously and his serviceswere not regularized . Since he worked as a casual employee, question of his reinstatement does not arise and there was also no question of conducting any DE against him . In his cross examination MW1 stated that first party was the only person working as a Sweeper at Davangere branch and they were paying him wages once in a month. He stated that they used to send bills to the District Manager for the purpose of payments and after receiving the amounts from the District Office , they used to pay the same to the workman . The maximum daily wages was Rs. 12.80 . When he was confronted with a Xerox copy of the application filed by the first party at Ex . WI he admitted that said application was recommended by the then Assistant Manager to appoint the workman as afull time worker as per the endorsement at Ex . WI (A) . It was further elicited in his further cross examination that they have documents to show the total number of days the first party worked and the total remuneration paid to him during the period. He admitted that they have informed the first party notto come to work after 27-7-1991 . However,

12. Whereas, learned counsel for the first party argued that from the statement of MW1 and the very documents, namely the payment vouchers produced by the management being called for by the first party and marked on his behalf at Ex . W2 series, it becomes crystal clear that the first party was in the service of the management as a part time sweeper continuously from 13-1-87 till he was removed from service on 27-7-1991 . He submitted that in the light of the above said payment vouchers , it has been amply proved by the first party that he has been paid 2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

total remuneration paid to him during the period, no such documents were produced before this tribunal to support their contention. On the other hand as seen above , the verydocuments , namely the vouchers maintained by the management would make it abundantly clear that it was on monthly basis the wages were being paid to the first party and not on the basis of actual working days .

13. Now coming to the moot question whether the first party worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more immediately preceding his removal from service . The above said payment vouchers would establish the above said fact apart from the statement made by the first party and the very admissions made by MWI in his deposition before this tribunal . It can be gathered from the payment vouchers that the first party worked during the months of July, August , September and October 1990 and also for the months of January, February, March, April May, June and July 1991. Apart from the payment vouchers there is a statement drawn under the signature of the District Manager produced before this tribunal along with the vouchers showing the details of acquittance in respect of wages paid to the first party for the aforesaid period . It runs as under : --

Details of acquittance

Rs . 320/-

July1990

Rs . 268.89

August 1990

Rs. 224.40

September 1990

October 1990

Rs . 307.20

Rs. 268.80

January 1991

Rs. 294.40

February 1991

Rs. 294.40

March 1991

Rs . 256.00

April 1991

Rs. 320,00

May 1991

June 1991

Rs . 294.40

Rs . 281.60

July 1991

14. First party in his statement as noted above . has also stated that he worked with the management even during the months of November and December 1990 which vouchers have not been produced by the management . Even for a moment ifwe ignore the abovesaid statement of first party, then, again it can be very well seen that as per the details of the payment of wages brought on record for the abovesaid period, it becomes evident that the first party was in the service of the management for four months in the year 1990 and for 7 months in the year 1991. That means he was in the service of the management from August 1990 till July 1991 for a period of 240 days and more continuously when his services were terminated in the a monthly wages of Rs . 100 at the beginning of his service and that was raised to Rs . 300 and more from 1990 on wards. He submitted that on the other hand the management has failed to produce any documents to suggest that the first party was working as a casual labourer for limited hours , that too , whenever the work was available and that he has been paid wages calculating his working days , though MWI admitted in his cross examination that they have got the documents to show the actual working days of the first party and the payment of wages made to him from time to time . Now therefore, the only question to be gone into would be whether the first party worked as a Part time Sweeper continuously for a period of 240 days and more immediately preceding his removal from service in order to attract the provisions of Section 25B and 2 ( 00 ) of the ID Act read with Section 25F ofthe ID Act . As argued for the first party the statement of MW 1 referred to supra would make it abundantly clear that the first party has beenin the service ofthe management as a Casual Labourer / part time Sweeper right from 13-1-1987 till his services came to be terminated w.e.f. 27-7-1991 . Statement of the first party in his examination Chief speaking to the said fact has also remained very much unshaken during the course ofhis cross examination. Apart from the said oral evidence, there is documentary evidence , namely, the . payment vouchers raging between the year 1987 and 1991. The first payment vouclier is dated 12-3-1987 and the last payment voucher is dated 29-7-1991 showing the payment of wages for the month of June 1991. Theree are the payment vouchers which were not produced before this tribunal during the course oftrial taken place before the remand of the case . They have been produced by the management being called for by the first party in the light of admission ofMWI made in his cross examination stating that payments have been made under vouchers signed by the first party. As argued for the first party, in the face ofthe abovesaid payment vouchers , now there is absolutely no scope left for the management to make a comment that the first party has not been in the service of the management continuously during the period from 1987 to 1991 and that he has been working only for limited hours that too whenever work is available . A perusal of the vouchers would lend support to the contention of the first party that he was being paid wages on monthly basis at the rate of Rs. 100 per month initially and his wages were raised to Rs . 300 subsequently. Most of the vouchers would speak to the fact that the first party has been paid wages at the rate ofRs. 100 per month , his signature being obtained on a receipt affixed by revenue stamp. It is to be made clear at this stage itself that the contention taken by the management that first party was being paid wages whenever he worked and not on monthly basis is not at all substantiated by any evidence before this tribunal . As reind above , though MW1 admitted in his cross cxamination that they have got the documents to show the total number of days the first party worked and the 2165

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

removed from service. Therefore, in the light of the above , the proper relief to be granted to the first party, in my opinion appears to be a payment by way of compensation. Inorder to arrive at a figure of compensation to be awarded tothe first party, it is necessary to find out as to whether the first party has been gainfully employed or not during theperiod he was away from the service of the management. Themanagement on its part did not take any pains to bring on record any evidence to suggest that the first party has been gainfully employed. The first party on whose shoulder or also burden was cast to speak to the fact as to whether gainfully employed or not , very strangely in his examination chief has never spoken to the said fact . He did not claim that he has not been gainfully employed . But as noted above , he had been working as a typist while inthe service of the management in his own words. Therefore , it cannot be said that the had not been gainfully employed during the period he was not in the service of the management . In the result keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances , a period of 15 years elapsed between the date of removal and the date the award is being passed and so also taking into consideration the last wages drawn by him as on June 1991 at the rate of Rs. 294.40 and so also taking into account the fact. that first party raiseddispute somewhere in the year 1994, it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if he is ordered to pay a sum of Rs . 75,000 as compensation towards the full and final payment . Accordingly reference is answered and following award is passed.

AWARD

The management is directed to pay a sum of Rs . 75,000 to the first party towards the ful fill final settlement ofclaim against the management within a period ofsix months from the date of publication of this award. In case offailure ofthe payment in the period prescribed . the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till its realization. No order to cost .

month of July 1991. Ifwe take into consideration the period of 10 months at the aggregate of 30 days each, then it will work out to be 300 days and that means to say that he was in the service of the management for a period of240 days and more immediately before he was denied work by the management. The document at Ex. WI , a Xerox copy ofthe application filedby the first party dated 18-7-1989 bearing the endorsement of the then Assistant Manager at Ex. WI ( A) as admitted.by MWI would also disclose that the firstpartyhas been in the service of the management as a Parttime Sweeper right from January 1987 as on the date he submitted the said application . Endorsement at Ex . WI ( A) would make it clear that his services were found satisfactory and hewas recommended for a permanent post also making a mention that his services were being utilized even as Typist , there being no typist in the office. Therefore , from the oral testimony of MW1 and WW1 coupled with the aforesaid documents at Ex . W1 & W2 series , there cannot be any hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to come to the conclusion that the order terminating the services of the first partytanfamounts to illegal retrenchment, there being undisputedly no compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act before his services were terminated . The contention of the management that the first party was just a casual and daily worker and there was no need for it to fulfil the requirments of Section 25F of the ID Act before he was denied work is not tenable . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a case reported in 1998 II LLJ 674 SC between MCD & Praveen Kumar Jain & Others have laid down the principle that even to discharge daily rated workman compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act is a must. It is also made clear that when there is a charge of misconduct against such a workman, the management must also hold an enquiry to prove the charge of misconduct hefore the services of such a workman can be terminated. Therefore, in the light of the above, the action of the management in not givingwork to the first party is held to be illegal and void ab initio.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 18th January, 2006)

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 979.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नैशनल कमीशन ऑफ बैकवर्ड क्लासेस 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 5/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

15. In a normal course , the resultant corollary to follow when termination order is held to be illegal will beby providing the relief of reinstatement. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case , it appears to me that it is too late in the day to order reinstatement of first party workman into the service of the management. He is out of the service of the management since the month of July 1991 that means to say that for the last 15 years he is away from the management . Moreover, he was just doing thejob of part time Sweeper and his contention that his services were regularized somewhere in the year 1988 has not been substantiated. It is also in his evidence that he was also did the job of typist while working as a Sweeper under the management. Therefore , when he has got better prospects as a Typist, it will not be advisable to reinstate him in service once again as a Sweeper that too after a lapse of period of 15 years from the date he was

[सं. एल-42012/95/2001- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] पी. सी. भारद्वाज, डैस्क अधिकारी [PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2006

That the workman applicant has been consistently requesting the management orally that she should be paid the minimum wages prescribed and she should be also given all the benefits which a workman of her category was given but the management did not take heed to her requests and the management got annoyed.

S.O. 979. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Commissioner for Backward Classes , and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 13-02-2006.

[No. L -42012/95/2001 - IR (C- II) ]

That on 01-02-2000 when the workman went for resuming duty at 9.00 A.M. the Section Officer MD Shri Kanta Prasad refused her to join duty so she could not resume her work on that day. When she demanded written termination of her services she was maltreated and she wasexpelled forcefully from that office .

P. C. BHARDWAJ , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Presiding Officer : Shri R.N. RAI

That after removing the workman from the duty of Sweeper management engaged another Safai Karamchari and he has been still doing the Safai work . That she searched for work after 1st February, 2000 but she could not get any job and she has been un - employed all along. The respondents have terminated her services illegally without any written order . The oral order of the management is illegal , arbitrary and unjust .

I.D. No. 5/2002

In the matter of:

Smt. Rajni,

Management has filed written statement . In written statement it has been stated that there is no sanctioned post. Safai Karamcharis are taken on part time basis to discharge 4 hrs . work .

C/o Industrial Workers ' Union ,

F-328 , Gali No. 22, Sadhu Nagar - 11 , New Delhi - 110045

Versus

That the workman was appointed on part time basis. The post is sanctioned by Ministry of Social Welfare . There isone post of Safai Karamchari .

TheManager,

National Commission for Backward Classes , Trikoot - I , Bhikaji Cama Place , New Delhi - 110 066

That the workman was a part time worker. She performed duties for 4 hours before lunch . Her name was not sponsored from Employment Exchange . Another person was engaged in view of the order of CAT. That respondents are an autonomous body.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -42012/ 95/ 2001- IR( C - II ) : Central Government Dt. 24-01-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The workman has filed rejoinder . In her rejoinder she has reiterated the averments of her claim statement and asserted that she worked regularly and she was a full time casual labour.

The point runs as under :-

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

"Whether the action of the management of the National Commission for Backward Classes , Trikoot - I, New Delhi in verbally stopping Smt . Rajni , Safai Karamchari from duty w.e.f. 01-02-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief she is entitled to ."

The management did not argue the case as none was present.

The workman is applicant has filed claim statement . In the statement ofclaim it has been stated that the workman has been working on the Gross Salary of Rs . 1300 per month from 1997 till 1st February, 2000. That she has been working continuously from 1997 till her dis - engagement and was discharging 8 hrs. duty and she was not given anybreak.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that she was full time Safai Wali . The burden is on the workman to prove that she was a full time worker. Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 is applicable for continuous nature ofwork . Theworkman has admitted in her cross examination that in the wage bill it has been mentioned against her name that 2167 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11, 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri H. A. Hazarika,

PresidingOfficer, CGIF -cum -Labour Court, Guwahati .

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute between:

payment was made to her as a part time worker. It has been specifically mentioned by the workman that she was a part timeworker . So the averments of her claim are not true . She has also admitted that she was paid Rs. 60 per day and she was paid for the days when she worked. The post is sanctioned from year to year so the post is not of regular nature. Another person has been engaged as Safai Wala ather place by order of the CAT. CAT has jurisdiction to pass that order so that order cannot be set aside by this Tribunal. The workman is a part time worker. It is true that retrenchment compensation , pay in lieu of notice has not been paid to her. The work is of regular nature but it can be discharged by a part time worker. She was engaged as a part time worker so she is not entitled to get pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation , Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 is not applicable in her case .

TheManagement of United Bank of India , Dibrugarh -Vs-

The reference is replied thus :-

Date ofAward: 30-01-2006 .

Their workman, Shri Rabindra Chandra Dutta . Ref. No. 5 of 2004. AWARD

The action of the management of the National Commission for Backward Classes , Trikoot- I , New Delhi in verbally stopping Smt. Rajni , Safai Karamchari fromduty w.e.f. 01-02-2000 is legal and justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award isgivenaccordingly.

Dated: 01-02-2006

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2006

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its Notification No. L- 12012 / 115 /2002- IR(B- II ) dated 26/09-2002 referred this Industrial Dispute arose between the management of United Bank of India and their Workman Sri Rabindra Chandra Dutta in exercise of Power conferred by Clause-( d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) for adjudication on the basis of the following Schedule:-

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 980.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गोहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/115/2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Rabindra Chandra Dutta by the United Bank of India is justified and correct? If not, what relief should be provided to the workman?"

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2006

2. The reference was initially received by State Industrial Tribunal and on set up of this CGIT- Cum -Labour Court, received by this CGIT -cum- Labour Court as per procedure on 9-12-04.

3. On being notified from here the Workman Sri Rabindra Chandra Dutta with his learned Advocate Mr. Sujit Kumar Ghose and the Management represented by Mr. Ranjit Sarma , Dy. Regional Manager appeared and their learned Advocate Mr. Ajoy Kumar Phukan on 12-1-05 and subsequently they filed their W.S. etc. S.O. 980. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of United Bank of India , and their workmen, received by this Central Government on 13-2-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 115/2002 - IR (B - II)]

4. The case ofthe Workman from the narration of his Written Statement in brief that while he was working as Grade- IV staff at Tinsukia Branch he took a loan ofRupees C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

2168

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

personal gain which is against the interest of Bank concern. Hence, the Charge Sheet was submitted against the workman and explanation was called . The para - 1 of the Charge was amended without prejudicing the Workman. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the workman, the Management appointed Sri Ranjit Kr. Dutta DRM, as Enquiry Officer . The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in accordance with principle of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence . The Enquiry Officer found that the Charge No. 1 is proved and Charge No.2 partially proved. On careful consideration of the enquiry report the Chief Regional Manager who is the Disciplinary Authority tentatively decided to impose punishment of dismissal without notice and communicated the decision by his letter No. RO/DBR/EST/RCD/VIG/04/ 96dated 5th October, 1996. By this letter the workman was given further opportunities of being heard personally in terms of Clause- 19, 12 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 and to appear on 23 October, 1996 at 11 A.M. at the chamber of Regional Manager at Dibrugarh . The workman was also given opportunity to submit representation against the proposed punishment but the workman neither appeared in person nor submitted any written representations . Hence , the matter was decided ex parte and the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice was confirmed by the RO/DBR/EST /RCD /VIG/04 / 96 dated 24th October, 1996. The dismissal was without notice with immediate effect . Leniency could not be shown to workman due to grave and gross misconduct and Management is quite justified in awarding punishment of dismissal.

One lakh for the purpose of construction of his house building. After utilization of the amount he received a sum of Rupees Fifteen thousand was remained under his disposal . At that stage on 31-12-92 the Manager of the concerned Branch , Sri D.N. Chakrabarty accompanying with Assistant Manager, D. Dutta and Clerks R. Deb Koiri and J.N. Gogoi arrived at his house and told him to hand over unutilized loan amount and other money to retain in his account. On being asked so on good faith and with the impression that the amount is needed to deposit in his account he handed over unspent Rupees Fifteen thousand and what amount he had and he collected for construction of his house stipulating to total Rupees Thirty Five thousand . But said official not only failed to deposit the money received from him rather pressurizing him illegally obtained his signature in a paper and filled up the same as per their dictation . Then they told him to pay Rupees Fifteen Thousand more else he will be implicated in a false case and will be terminated. Under such circumstances the workman paid Rupees Fifteen thousand more as such Management realized Rupees Fifty Thousand from him . The workman lodged an FIR at Tinsukia Police Station but as forced by the Branch Manager he withdrawn the same. Thenhe lodged a complaint case but same is stayed as the accused person approached the Hon'ble High Court . The Management made a false allegation that the workman committed theft of Rupees Fifty Thousand on 21-6-93 , a charge sheet is made against him . The workman specifically denied all the allegations before the Disciplinary Proceeding Head. The workman was not allowed to defend his case properly or to represent by anybody. Whenever he wanted to say something he was told to keep quite assuring him a chance on the following day. But without giving that chance he was handed over a termination notice on 24-10-96 . He was not furnished with copy ofthe Proceeding and second show cause notice. Had there been proper chance and had he been not prejudice the workman would have been able to convenience the Disciplinary Authority

that he is innocent .

7. The further case of the Management that the workman concealed the real fact . That full reasonable opportunities were given to the workman to defend his case and he has rightly disnussed . That he committed theft of Rupees Fifty Thousand i.e. a bundle of Rs.50 denomination currency note from the Trunk carrying cash to the Chest on 23-12-92 and he admitted the same in writing before the Bank Officials . Under the above facts and circumstances the Management prayed to pass an award in favour of the Management holding that the dismissal of Rabindra Chandra Dutta is quite justified and he is not entitled to reinstate with back wages .

8. Heard the argument submitted by learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Ghose and Mr. A.K. Phukan respectively for the Workman and Management. Perused the record. The following are the witnesses examined by theManagement .

5. Further case of the workman is that the Written Statement submitted by the Management are not correct and the clalm of the Management that this reference proceeding is not maintainable has got no legal force . That he had not committed theft in respect of Rupees Fifty Thousand. That the allegations that he was misused the house building loan is false . Under this premises the workman prayed that the Management of the United Bank of India is neither justified nor correct in dismissing him and prayed to direct the Management to reinstate him with fullbackwages.

Sri Ranjit Kumar Dutta- MW. 1 and Sri Gouri Sankar Das-M. W.2 . They are cross -examined by the Learned Advocate for the workman .

The workman Sri Rabindra Chandra Dutta appeared himself as solitary witness, he is also cross -examined by the Learned Advocate for the Management 6. The case of the Management as reflected in their W.S. in brief is that the workman raised dispute without anybasis and reasonable ground with the hope of wrongful gain. That whilethe workman was working as a Sub Staff in Tinsukia Branch committed gross misconduct for his [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2169 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

Mr. A.K. Phukan . All the evidences are recorded by my own hand . Perused the exhibited documents .

put back in to the Currency Chest statement . The Currency Chest is the property of the reserve Bank of India and as regards the transaction the report was prepared and transmitted to Reserve Bank of India . Any short fall in the Currency Chest would lead to immediate suspension of theHead Cashier of the Bank who is the Incharge of the Currency Chest . There was shortfall of Rupees Fifty thousand on 23-12-92 after that the Cashier found no other alternative and borrowed Rupees Fifty thousand from one of the customers Sankarlal Agarwal and made up the shortfall . As per R.B.I. norms there should not be any shortfall in the Currency Chest . The shortfall was caused byWorkman Rabindra Chandra Dutta who was the Chest Peon on 23-12-92 . In cross he stated that the Peon entrusted to the Currency Chest with the permission of Head Cashier, thekeys were remained with the disposal of Head Cashier. He does not know if there were 70 boundles of Rs . 50 denomination in the Currency Bin on 23-12-92 . The CurrencyBookdated 23-12-92 . is correct .

9.MW. I deposed that he being appointed Enquiry Officer enquired the Disciplinary Proceeding against the workman Rabindra Chandra Dutta . The charges against the Workman were ( 1 ) theft ofRs . 50,000/-only on 23-12-92 (2) miss utilization of House Building Loan amounting to Rupees One lakh sanctioned by the Bank concerned. He deposed that he gave full opportunities to the Workman so that he may not deprive from natural justice the Management case was presented by the Presenting Officer Sri . Akul Chandra Bose. The Workman was also allowed to adduce defence witness it he likes . He was also allowed opportunity to take help of any person who defend himself as per norms. The Management examined 9 witnesses . The delinquent Workman also examined 2 defence witnesses. Some of the Management witnesses were also cross examined by the delinquent Workman himself. The defence witnesses were cross -examined by the Presenting Officer . After completion of enquiry he came to the conclusion that the charge No. 1 , theft is fully proved and charge No.2 that miss utilization of H.B. Loan was partly proved . He submitted the Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary Authority. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority also issued a letter to the delinquent Workman to represent for personal hearing about the proposed punishment but the delinquent Workman did not appear for personal hearing in relation to proposed punishment . The dismissal without notice means the proposed punishment would be effected as per the letter received by the delinquent Workman, Ext . 1 letter dated 18-8-04 issued by Asstt. General Manager . Ext . 2 Enquiry Report Series pages 2( 1 ) to 2(59 ) . In cross examination he deposed that he recorded cross examination of some of the witnesses . The delinquent Workman wanted to take help ofone Ashim Kr . Dutta but Ashim Kumar Dutta was not allowed as he wasnot Bank employee. He submitted the Enquiry Report to Disciplinary Authority. Disciplinary Authority is the authority to issue second show cause Notice.

Sri Rabindra Chandra Dutta, delinquent Workman issolitary witness for himself deposed that in 1992 while he was at Tinsukia Branch he took loan of Rupees one lakh for construction of his house building . On 23-12-92 for construction of his house he kept Rupees Thirty Five Thousand at his residence and he applied for leave from 28th December, 1992 , to 11th January, 1993. On 23-12-92 he attended the office on the following day. On 31-12-92 theManager of the Bank concerned Sri D. N. Chakrabarty. A.M. , Sri D. Dutta , Clearks , Deb Koiri and J. N. Gogoi visited his house and they told hirn to come to the Bank withcash money of Rupees Thirty Five Thousand available at his house which will be deposited in his account against his loan amount. Accordingly he came to the Bank with the aforesaid amount. But relating to deposit of that amount no counter foil was handed over to him , Than the Bank Manager told him that amounting to Rupees Fifty thousand was theft from the Bank and that Rupees Thirty Five Thousand was the part of that Rupees Fifty Thousand . I was told by the Manager on 31-12-92 about the theft occurred on 23-12-92 . No criminal case was lodged against him, that he committed theft of Rupees Fifty thousand . That the amount of Rupees Thirty Five Thousand was taken by the staff from him by force . Then he lodged F.I.R. at Tinsukia Police Station on 4-1-93 Ext . A is the copy of that F.I.R. as police did not a take action relating to FIR, he lodged complaint case at Tinsukia being No. C/22 /93. Ext. B is the copy of that complaint case . The last date given relating to his case was on 4-1-97 Then the Bank gave a departmental charge sheet on 21-6-93 . Ext. D is the original charge sheet given to him He also learnt from Ext. F that meanwhile the charge against him is amended . He did not get chance to reply amended charge . He dose not know English and applied to defend him by one Ashim Dutta from L.I.C.I. Tinsukia but Bank refused to allow him The MW.2 Sri Gouri Sankar Das deposed that he is carrying the Ext . 3 , Attendance Register wherein it is reflected that on 23-12-92 the delinquent Workman left the office at 4.30 P.M. on 24-12-92 he left at 5 P.M. 25-12-92 was holiday, on 26-12-92 he did not sign the Attendance Register: Again on 27-12-92 was holiday. From 28-12-92 to 31-12-92 he was on leave From 1-1-93 to 9-1-93 he was absent . He was under suspension from 9-1-93 Ext . 4 is the Currency Chest Book for the period 1992, from 18-12-92 to 26-12-92 Ext . 4 ( 1 ) is the Currency Chest Statement at page 97 on 23-12-92 , Ext . 4 (2) is the Currency statement of Rs.50/- denomination .In every beginning working day the required as well as existing balance evaluated and at the end of the day the balance amount after days transaction the residual amount remains

514 GI/2006-24 2170

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ ALGUNA 20 , 1927

to defend by the person he applied for. Ext. G is the copy of that application , Ext . G( 1 ) is his signature . Ext . H is the original refusal letter issued by the Bank. The management denied the reasonable opportunity of being heard at the time of the departmental proceeding against him . At the relevant time of alleged occurrence of theft In-charge of Chest Bin was Sri Tapash Kr. Naha and Head Cashier Dijendra Kr. Dey and no action was taken against them. Ext.j is the original order of him dismissal from servicebut he was given no notice before dismissal. Meanwhile on 7-1-93 the Bank took rupees Fifteen Thousand from him and the total amount became Rupees Fifty Thousand, In cross -examination he deposed that he worked in cash Section to carry the cashier money for about 3 years Cash is a English worked that means money. He knows how to countmoney.His duty are from 10 O'clock to 5-15 P.M. On 23-12-92 he left the Bank at 4-30 P.M. without permission as permission was not required as signing on the Attendance Register at the time of departure was sufficient. Hedenied that he escaped without permission. He did not submit utilization certificate to the Bank as the Bank did not ask for it . He denied that he missutilized the loan money. He denied that on 23-12-92 he carried the cash money in the Bank from the Iron safe to Steel Trunk . He denied that he confessed before the Bank Manager the he committed the theft of Rupees Fift thousand and to save him. In the confessional statement which was forcibly taken from him was included that he will return Rupees Fifteen Thousand. Asforced by the staff he withdrawn the FIR he lodged at Tinsukia Police Station. The withdrawal letter was written byhim as theManager forced him and dictated . He denied thathis leave application was rejected. He denied that after alledged occurrence on 23-12-92 he voluntarily absent fromBankduties. the Enquiry Officer informed him that he can take Bank employre to defend him . He denied that relating to amended arge levelled against him was intimated to him by the Bank . He denied that complaint case was falsely lodged by him . He does not remember whether after completion of hearing of enquiry the Second show cause notice was served to him or not .

10. On careful perusal of written statements , Additional Written Statement , Annexures and exhibited . documents and the evidenc of both the parties available in the record . I found the claim of the workman is that false charges were levelled aginst him and without providing him reasonable opportunities and notice he is illegallydismissed from is service . He had not committed alleged theft of Rupees Fifty thousand and so also not miss utilized the House Building Loan of Rupees One lakh he received. The Management claimed that the delinquent workman committed theft in respect of Rupees fifty thousand froin the Chest of the related Bank on 23- 12-92 while he was no duty and has left office premises before time . He also missutilized the loan of Rupees one lakh sanctioned to him for construction of his house

buikling. I found from the Ext . D that charges levelled against him was communicated to him . Ext. F is the amended charge . These vital documents are came from the custody of the delinquent workman and he exhibited the same while deposing evidence . the Enquiry Officer appeared as MW. 1 and exhibited the Enquiry Proceeding . which is consisting from Ext. 2( 1 ) to 2(59) . He is also cross- examined . On perusal the enquiry report I find the Enquiry Officer made the enquiry in details . He examined 9 witnesses from the management side and the delinquent workman examined 2 DWs namely Sri Suresh Ch . Das and DW.2 Sri Dulal Das . I find the management has cxamined Dijendra Kr. Dey, Head Cashier who has narrtted the incident in details . The MW1 also narrated how he filled up the shortage of Rupees Fifty Thousand in the Chest. The other 8 witnesses supported the incident of theft of Rupees Fifty Thousand. As regards taking of loanwitness MW9 has deposed that there was a sanction of Rupees one Lakh and on verification by the Chief Manager it was found only approximately Rupees Thirty Thousand were utilized for the construction . DW1 . deposed that Rabindra Ch. Dutta borrowed Rupees Fifteen Thousand from him on 7-1-93 . DW.2 deposed that he saw Rabindra Ch. Dutta along with other staff while going in a Taxi . Next day he carne to know that they went to the house of Rabindra Ch. Dutta. Now on careful scrutiny of the documents in the record I find that there is grounds for labeling charges against the delinquent workman. The reply made by the delinquent workman is of course not acceptable considering the circumstances of the incident . It is to be noted that on 23-12-92 he was on duty but he left the Bank premises before time at 4-30 P.M. and the same was admittedly not intimated to his higher officers . He categorically stated that he put the time in the Attendance and after signing left the Bank premises. Now I am looking into Ext . 2(31 ) which is a confessional statement , admittedly it is written by own hand of the delinquent workman. It is pertainent to note that after the confessional statement on 31-12-92 he wrote another letter on 4-1-93 that he will repay Rupees Fifteen Thousand on 7-1-93 and prayed for time . These two documents are written in his mother tongue. The circumstances shows that he wrote both the documents voluntarily because after writing the confessional statement and prayer for time there were a gap of about 4/5 days . Hence, I do not believe the version of the delinquent workman that these are obtained from him by force. I find from the record and evidenc of the delinquent workmant that he lodge a case before the Tinsukia Police Station and Ext . A is the copy of the FIR but the same is withdrawn by him as Bank official forced him to withdraw the same . Ext . 2 (5 ) is the copy of the withdrawal letter . This was written in English . Then he lodged a complaint case but he was not aware about the fate of that case of course he is not pressing for the same. What I believe those cases are falsely field for his own benefit. The enquiry report shows that enquiry 2171 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

and Others Vs. Debasis Das and others and (2) (2005 ) 2 SCC 237 MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority.

Onperusal of case laws submitted by the learned counsel for the management it appears that in his written argument case No. 2005 2 SCC 237 the name ofthe parties arewrongly inserted which ought to have been Divisional Manager, Plantation Division , Andaman & Nicobar Islands Vs. Munnu Barrick and others . In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court held in one of the paras which goes likethis:

"C Labour law-domestic enquiry -Workmen not entitled to protection under Art . 311 - Constitution of India, Art. 311 -Applicability"

The learned Advocate for the management at the time of argument submitted that as per Ext . 4 on 23-12-92 therewas no shortage in the Chest as per record . But I find there is evidence that as per Reserve Bank of India's Rules the Chest is to be filled on day to day basis . Hence, the Cashier borrowed Rupees Fifty thousand from one Sankarlal Agarwal . The amount of Rupees Fifty thousand was returned to Sankarlal Agarwal which was recovered from the workman . Ext . 2(29) is the receipt to Sankarlal Agarwal . I find to maintain the Rules of the Reserve Bank of India this is done by the Cashier.

was done giving opportunities to the workman because he got the opportunities of examining the witnesses from his end . Another question is raised that he wanted to represent him by one Ashim Kr. Dutta and the Enquiry Officer refused to allow his prayer on the ground that Ashim Kr . Dutta is not a Bank employee and the delinquent workman wrote the letter himself that Ashim Kr. Dutta is an employee of L.I.C.I. Ext . G is that letter. It is written in English . The sum arid substances of that letter is that Sri . Ashim K. Dutta will be defence person in the enquiry for the workman but categorically in this letter it is written " I like to mention here that Sri Dutta will keep mum and he will also translate all the statements conversion in my mother tongue" i.e. his help was not sought to speak before Enquiry Officer . The learned Advocate Mr. S.K Ghosh at the time of his argument stressed that the reasonable opportunities of allowing person is not allowed and as per Bipartite settlement it could have been allowed and he stressed Bipartite Settlement arrived on 19th October, 1966 under Clause 19.12 (2) which goes like this "At the request of the said union by a representative of the state federation or All India Organization to which such union is affiliated " . But the letter Ext . Gis not from the Union . It is personally from the workman only. So I do not like to hold in the present circumstances of the case that the workman was not given reasonable opportunities . As regards the amendment of the charge the Ext . F itself shows that there was intimation to the workman relating to the amendment of the charge because Ext. F is from the custody of the workman . There is no bar while the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the departmental proceeding to alter , modified and amended the charge but the instant case the amended charge was intimatedto the workman and as such , there is no prejudice to the workman.

12. Considering the incident and the whole enquiry proceeding. I find the workman is not prejudice in forwarding his defence case. He has given full opportunity of being heard. I find he committed the alleged theft and aslo not admittedly submitted the utiliztion certificate relating to H.B. Loan. On verification of the higher authority also found that he has not utilized the amount sanctioned for H.B. Loan. I find in both the count the workman failed and the management has proved guilty against him. There is a question as regards the punishinent. It is a matter of Bank . The personworking in the Bank must have high integrity and extreme sincerity they should be honest . Hence , punishment of his removal is not unjustified. It is proper punishment , I do not like to interfere the punishment imposed. Under the facts and circumstances I find the management has not committed any injustice to the workman and the order of his dismissal is justified and accordingly award is passed in favour of the management . The management justified in dismissing the workınan Rabindra Chandra Dutta from his service .

13. Send this award immediately to the Government concerned.

H.A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer.

11. After completion of the departmental enquiry there was a Notice to the delinquent workman to show cause on 23-10-96 at 11 A.M as per the document submitted by the management about the proposed punishment as per the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 under Clause 19.12. But being absent of the delinquent workman the final order of his dimissal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. I find the second show cause is valid as per the Bipartite Settlement . I believe the second show cause notice was served to the delinquent workman and he remined absent for which the dismissal order was passed. There is no mistake on the part ofthe Disciplinary Authority in taking such a drastic decision. Among all the documents , I find the confessional statements and prayer for time is very important and vital . These are written by own hand of the workman and he admitted his guilt . I have perused the written argument submitted by the learned Advocates of both the sides . The learned Advocate for the management submitted 2 case laws ( 1 ) 2003 4 SCC 557 , Canara Bank 2172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 981.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 225/2003- आई आर ( डीयू) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 15th February, 2006 S.O. 981. In pursuanceance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 55/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006 .

[No. L -40012/225 /2003 - IR(DU) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW PRESENT

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 55/2004

Reference No. L -40012 /225/2003 - IR (DU ) Dt. 7-6-2004

BETWEEN

Sri Hari Nath Gautam,

S/o Sri Tiju Prasad,

Vill & PO Vishwanathpur, Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar (UP)

AND

The Chief General Manager ( Maint . ) , NTR. BSNI , Akritik Tower- 19 В. 4th Floor, Vidhan Sabha Marg , Lucknow The Divisional Engineer, (Microwave Maintenance) , BSNL , Goel Building , 2nd Floor, Dharamshala Bazar, Gorakhpur

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour referred Da forowing dispute for adjudication to Presiding Officer, Colam-Latour Court , Lucknow.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] "Whether the action of the Management of BSNL (Microwave Maint ) Northern Telecom . Region , Lucknow in terminating the services of Sh. Hari Nath Gautam w.e.f. 1-10-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Worker's case in brief is that he was engaged as sweeper during 1-7-87 to 30-9-98 under opposite party at Microwave Repeater Station Vishwanathpur Basti Distt. Sant Kabier Nagar and he received salary but on 1-10-98 he was terminated without written orders . It is alleged that the writtencontinued to approach opposite parties , but the opposite only assured the workman, but did not act , worker has alleged that he was neither given notice , notice pay or compensation . Worker has submitted that Ramchandra and Ram Narayan Yadava were also employer under opposite party who continue to work, but the worker has not been reinstated. The opposite party has with malafide intention terminated the services of the worker which is example of unfair labour practice. Thus the opposite party has violated theprovision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947. Worker has also submitted that whatever delay is caused is only due to malafide conduct of the opposite party and the same is liable to be excused. Accordingly the worker has prayed for reinstatement with all back wages and consequential benefit.

Opposite party has denied the claim and has alleged that the worker was never appointed as Sweeper under Divisional Engineer , Microwave Maintenance . Gorakhpur and as such no question of termination arose . It is submitted that Microwave Repeater Station Vishwanathpur Distt. Basti (presení Sant Kabeer Nagar ) was shut down on 30-9-98 . Whatever employees of department of S. A. Gorakhpur were engaged at Vishwanathpur were there were recalled at SSP and the security of the Vishwanathpur has been entrused to security Agency. By the order of 28-9-2001 entire station was handover to SDO Phones ( Khalilabad) under TDM , Basti . It isalso submitted that during 1-7-87 to 30-9-98 occasionally. Hari Nath Gautam was engaged for cleaning for short time on oral agreement . It is denied that the worker ever approached for employment and he was assured . The facts alleged by the worker is also baseless and incorrect .

Sri Hari Nath Gautam has already got for the reward for the work he rendered and he is not entitled to any relief. Opposite partics are not authorised to provide employment orally . It is also alleged that the period which he alleged, was the period when the said station , was under the department of Govt . of India . Claim alleged to be time barred and is not maintainable .

Workman is alleged to have been engaged for sweeping the floor at the rate of Rs . 280/- per month upto Jan , 1998 and thereafter it was reduced Rs . 500 a.m. on contractual basis .

Worker has examined himself on the other hand opposite party has examined SDE, Microwave Maintenance and Sri Jagdish Prasad.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

Worker has not filed any documentary evidence.

Statement of Sri Hari Nath Gautam which is relevant to facts ofthe case and which has come in cross examination isasunder:

" मोहल्ले में दूसरों के यहां भी सफाई करता था । 100-150 घरों में झाड़ लगाता था । पहले महीने 240, फिर 280 फिर 500 रुपया मिलता था । बाकी जो बाहर काम करता हूं 100-150 घरों में उसमें हरेक से 50 रुपये लेता हूं वहां BSNL का काम नहीं होता । अब वह बस्ती डिवीजन में चला गया है । "

The above fact goes to prove that the worker Sri Hari NathGautam was by profession a sweeper, who used sweep in the Mohalla where he was engaged in 100-150 houses . Thus he used earn . Thus average earning from his Vritti was about Rs. 6250 per month, besides whatever he received for sweeping, the premises in question. Generally from the above circumstances it is not the case where Sri Hari Nath Gautam was engaged for full time , because he has to sweep other houses as well .

In the absence of any written order of appointment or termination order, it can be safely inferred that his job was contractual . In case the reward which he was getting in lieu ofsweeping was less, he could have let sweeping of his own.

Onthe other hand management witness Sri Jagdish Prasad has stated on oath :

" हरि नाथ गौतम को सफाई के लिये आवश्यकता पड़ने पर बुलाया जाता था तथा आधे से एक घंटा सफाई का काम करता था। उसे सफाई कार्य के लिये तयशुदा राशि रु. 280 प्रतिमाह तथा जनवरी 1999 से 500 रुपया प्रति माह दिया जाने लगा किन्तु कार्य एक घंटे से ज्यादा नहीं लिया जाता था । " विश्वानाथपुर रिपीटर स्टेशन 30-9-98 से बन्द हो गया । इसके उपरान्त हरि नाथ गौतम द्वारा कोई भी प्रार्थना पत्र अन्यत्र सफाई काकार्य करने के लिये नहीं दिया गया, सूक्ष्म तरंग अनुरक्षण के अन्य रिपीटर स्टेशनों पर भी सफाई का कार्य स्थानीय लोगों से अल्प समय आबद्ध करके कार्य लिया जाता था किन्तु अब सभी रिपीटर स्टेशन बन्द हो चुके हैं ।

BSNL के कार्य में सफाई का कार्य ठेके पर देकर ठेकेदार के माध्यम से कराया जाता है तथा हरि नाथ गौतम को पुनः सफाई कार्य पर नहीं लगाया जा सकता । विश्वानाथपुर में हरिनाथ गौतम रिपीटर स्टेशन पर कार्य करने के अतिरिक्त अन्य 100-150 घरों में सफाई का कार्य करता था और भी करता चला आया है । सन् 2000 से BSNL बनने के बाद किसी भी श्रमिक को दैनिक भुगतान के आधार पर मजदूरी हेतु नहीं रखा जा रहा है । " are: Thus the fact which emerged from the evidence 1. That Sri Hari Nath Gautam used to sweep the premises from 1-7-87 to 30-9-98 .

2173 2. The installation for the sweeping of which Sri Hari Nath Gautam was called , stands shut down.

3. That Sri Hari Nath Gautam used to sweep in 100-150 houses on Rs. 50 per month, whereas he was get more return .

4. The nature & evidence shows that sweeping workwas not full time job in the installation .

5. This is not a case of employer and employee buta contracted sum was paid to the worker.

6. Worker could not be believed that he after closer of the unit represented for sweeping job elsewhere as it could have put him at substantiate loss , thus there is undue delay in espousing the cause & raising the dispute .

Ithasto be kept in mind that if the need of the industry issatisfied by the utilising local sweeper who can sweep the floor in 1/2 hours to 1 hours on negotiated sum, there is absolutely no need to tax the industry. Reason is simple are, i.e. what is utility of the sweeper for remaining 7 hours in the industry. It therefore, can not be held that there existed the employer and employee relation between the parties.

BSNL had no liberty to deploy the services of Sri Hari Nath Gautam , when the work ceased to exist . It is not proved that Sri Hari Nath Gautam was appointed by opposite party as workman and as such there is no question oftermination . It is in the same way one occupies a house in a particular locality and engages a local escavanger for safai on negotiated sum and when he leaves the house or shop and the contract ends . Sri Hari Nath Gautam was not earning for his livelihood from one establishment, but was engaged by others also . In the circumstances the question of termination does not arise . Issue is answered accordingly. The worker is not entitled to any relief. Award passed accordingly against the worker.

Lucknow

6-2-2006

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 982.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 161/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/43/97 - आई आर (डी यू) ]

बी. एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव 2174

[PART II-SÉC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 / PHALGUNA 20, 1927

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2006

hasreferred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

S.O. 982. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 161 / 98) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, No. I , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P. W.D. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 15-2-2006 .

"Whether the action of the Management of C.P.W.D. not regularising the services of S/ Shri Daya Chand , Beldar , 20-12-81 , Vikram Singh , Beldar, 28-12-85 , Vikram, Beldar 8-1-86, Bandu, Beldar, 8-1-86, Harbans. Beldar 15-1-86, Ashok Singh, Beldar 12-2-86 and Fakir Chand, Mason , 7-1-86 is legal and justified ? If not . what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date ?"

[No.42011/ 43/97 - IR (DU) ] B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT ΝΟ . 1 , NEW DELHI

2. Workmen filed claim- statement claiming regularisation since dates of their respective induction and to pass necessary orders for paying them the arrears in salary since that date and in respect of the seniority as well . Written statement was also filed on behalf of the management denying the claim of the workmen and praying for dismissal of the claim.

Presiding Officer : Shri S.S. Bal

I.D. NO. 161/98

In the matter of dispute between :

3. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the facts mentioned in the written statement were denied and contents of the claim - statement were reiterated tobe correct.

1. Shri Daya Chand S/ o Sh . Jetha Chand

2. Shri Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Zila Singh

3. Shri Bandu S/ o Sh . Ajit Singh

4. Shri Harbans S/ o Shri Jagdish

5. Shri Ashok Singh S/ o Sh . Bhagwat Singh

6. Shri Fakir Chand S/o Sh. Chajju Ram

7. Shri Vikram S/o Sh . Jeet Singh

All members of C.P.W.D. Karamchari Union (Regd . )

Workmen.

Plot No. 1, Aram Bagh, near Udasin Mandir, Pahar Ganj , Delhi and represented through Mr. Hukam Chand, President ofthe said Union.

Versus

1. The Superintendent Engineer C.P. W.D. (Electrical Coordination)

I.P. Bhavan , New Delhi .

2. Director General , C.P. W.D Nirman Bhavan , New Delhi .

4. Case was fixed for evidence of workman. Perusal ofthe record shows that Shri Ravinder Sharma , Advocate A/R for workmen last appeared on 7-5-2002 and has not been appearing for the last so many hearings . Hence workmen was proceded ex parte vide my order dated 17-8-2004 . Thus no evidence has been filed in support of the claim of regularisation of workman. However, it is admitted that Daya Chand, Beldar is working since 10-12-85 , Vikram Singh is working since 28-12-85 , Bandu Beldar is working since 8-1-86 , Harbans Beldar is working since 15-1-86 , Ashok Singh Beldar is working since 22-1- 86, Vikram Beldar is working since 8-1-86 and Fakir Chand Mason is working since 7-1-86 respectively and they have been working as such but there is no material on the record to show that they have become entitled to be regularised as Beldar and Mason against their posting as claimed. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the claim of the workmen . However, the workmen have been working for a pretty long time since 1986 onward and it would be appropriate ifthe respondent examine their claim of regularisation sympathetically and pass appropriate order for regularisaiton if there exist post /permanent/regular vacancies . Award is passed accordingly. File be consigned to record room .

3. Executive Engineer P. W.D. Division -V, Raja Garden,

Dated:06-02-2006

HomeGuard Building,

S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer Delhi.

.....Management

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी , 2006

: None for the Workman.

APPEARANCES

का. आ. 983.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 Sh . R. Thomas, U.D. C. for the Management .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 42011 /43 /97 - IR (DU) dated 4-06-98

(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 2175 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 ,

2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/15/91 .) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/59/90- आई आर (डी यू) ]

बी. एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 15th February, 2006

management. Therefore the case proceeded ex parte against the management . But the workman failed to adduce exparte evidence and ultimately on the last 2 dates fixed in the reference i . e . 13-10-05 and 18-1-06 , the parties absented themselves and no one appeared for them . Under the circumstances , this tribunal was left with no alternative but to close the reference for award and therefore on 18-1-06, the reference was closed for award.

3. There is no evidence on record either for proving the case of the workman or for proving the case of the management as the parties failed to adduce evidence in support oftheir respective claims . It appears that the parties do not want to prosecute this reference.

S.O. 983. 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/ 15/91 ) of the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom and their workman, wich was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006.

4. It is evident from the above that the parties have no interest in the reference and therefore no dispute award is passed without any order as to costs.

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

[No. L-40012/59/90- IR(DU)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer ANNEXURE

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2006

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT JABALPUR

NƠ . CGIT/LC/R/ 15/91

Shri C.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

Shri Trilochan Prasad Pandey,

Branch Secretary,

का. आ. 984.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन एअर लाइंस लि. के. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Akhil Bhartiya Telecommunication Karamchari Sangh , Line Staff & Class - IV,

[सं. एल -11012/8/98- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव C.T.O. Compound , Jabalpur Workman/Union

Versus

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006

...Management

The Sub Divisional Officer , Telephones- II , Gorakhpur, Jabalpur.

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of January, 2006

S.O. 984. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/ 98) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006.

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L -40012/ 59/90- I.R. (D.U. ) dated 31-1-91/4-2-91 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

[No. L- 11012/8/98 - IR( C-I)] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the Distt . Engineer, Telecommunication Jabalpur (M.P. ) in terminating the services of Shri Mustafa , S/ o Sh . Sakoor Mohammad w.e.f. 6-3-89 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

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

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT 55 of 1998

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Indian Airlines

2. After this reference order was received, it was duly registered on 13-2-91 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim . The parties filed their statements ofclaim . Thereafter on several dates fixed in the reference , the management failed toappear. No one appeared on those dates on behalf of the 2176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

AND

Their Workman APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr. S. M. Dixit, Advocate Mrs. Chhaya Gupta , Advocate Mrs. Madhavi Dass, Advocate For the workman : Shri J. P. Singh, Secretary, IndianAirlines Karamchari Sangh.

State

: Maharashtra AWARD

Mumbai . dated the 2nd day of February, 2006 1. This is 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. No. L- 11012/8/98 - IR (C -I) dated 07-12-1998. The terms of reference given in the Schedule are as follows :

" क्या इण्डियन एअरलाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा सर्वश्री सुनील बी. आदोरकर, सुनील एम. रोहाकार, शिवाजी के. जाधव तथा मधुकर एम. गायकवाड़ लोडरों को निगमित न किया जाना न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस तिथि से किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? " 2. The dispute is with respect to 4 workmen viz . S/Shri . Sunil B. Adarkar , Sunil G. Rohekar, Madhukar M. Gaikwad. Shivaji Kondiba Jadhav who have raised the Industrial dispute through Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh . The workmen are referred by the word " Sangh ". They were casual labourers with the Indian Airlines Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as the Company) . They were working as Labourers ( daily rated workmen in different departments ) on rotation basis for years together. The company is a Government undertaking . It has been employing the workers on daily rated basis for years together on rotation basis to deprive them the claim for regularization . The Sangh raised the demand in this respect vide letter dated 17-6-1991 . The Company did not consider them for permanency and instead started making recruitment from outside . In fact, there had been a demand for regularization of119 workers for which the Industrial dispute CGIT - 2/27 of 1992 was raised. The said reference was decided by the Tribunal on 30-6-1995 and the order for regularization was made therein along with certain directions . The dispute of the four workers under reference was put up before the concerned Labour Officer but the talks failed. The failure reportwas submitted but the Central Government took some time for making reference. It is how this reference was made on 07-12-1998 .

3. The reference is contested by the Company on a number of grounds which have been continuously taken up by it in a number of cases contested/pending in different Tribunals /High Courts. The only relevant contention for

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] the present reference which is being put forth by the Company is that the Company had considered the matter ofall the four workmen and it found that Sari Sunil Adarkar and Shri M. M. Gaikwad were not considered to the eligible since they were not being engaged for the last three years . i. e . from 01-1-1993 . Mr. Sunil Rohekar was found suitable and was kept on the panel but sufficient vacancies did not arise during the validity of the panel and hence Mr. Rohekar wasnot appointed to the permanent post. The last workman Mr. S. K. Jadhav did not appear for interview held in the year 1992 and hence he was not declared fit for appointment.

4. This reference was earlier decided by this Tribunal vide Award dated 25-8-2003 . The claim of all the workmen under reference was rejected in view of the Award dated 30-6-1995 under reference No. CGIT- 2 /27 of 1992 since they were not the parties thereto. This Award was challenged before the High Court of Bombay in W. P. No. 7507 of 2003 which was allowed by the Honourable High Court of Mumbai vide order dated 31-3-2004 and the matter has been remanded to this Tribunal for fresh decision.

5. The fodllowing issues have been framed by the predecessor in office on 19-3-2002 .

(1) Whether the case of all the workmen is covered by the interim order dated .... passed by the High Court ofBombay in W.P. No. 1306 of 1996 dated 27th July 1996. If so what is the effect ?

(II) Whether the workmen were employed in the jobswhich are of perennial nature?

(III) Whether the Indian Airlines committed unfair labour practice by employing the workmen för ninety days and then by giving artificial breaks?

(IV) Whether the aforesaid company conımitted unfair labour practice by employing other workmen permanently instead of the workmen involved in this case?

(V) Whether the workmen have right to claim permanent absorption by way regularizing them services?

(VI) Whether the workmen mentioned in the order ofreference made by the Central Government are entitled to any relief by way of an award passed by this Tribunal?

6.Regarding the Issue Nos . 2, 3 and 4 I have to say that the controversy appeared to have been already set at rest by means of decision of Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 27 of 1992 and also the judgment of the Honourable High Court of Bombay, Madras and Supreme Court in a number of cases filed by the casual workmen against the Indian Airlines . Hence, it is concluded that the workmen were employed in the jobs which were of permanent nature with the Indian Airlines . The Company committed unfair labour practice by employing the workmen for 90 days and then by 14 2177 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

giving artificial break and that the Company committed unfair labour practice by employing other workmen permanently instead of workmen involved in reference.

the pool of casual employees formed and, that too, shall be done strictly in accordance with strict seniority, seniority being reckoned from the first date of employment.

Since grievance is made that things are not above board in selecting the employees for permanency, at every stage the 1st Respondent shall display a notice giving full particulars of the casual employees who are being made permanent so that other employees would be in the know as to how it is being done.

Notice of Motion made absolute in the afore- going terms . No order as to costs .

7. Regarding Issue No. 1, I have to say that there appears to be no dispute about the fact that the workmen under reference are fully governed by the Interim Order and also the final order passedby the Honourable Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 346 of 1996, 374 of 1996 , 1303 of 1996 , 1563 of 1996 and Interim Order was passed on 3-6-1996 and Final order has been passed on 16-10-2001 . It is immaterial as to whether the workmen under reference were not party to the aforesaid Writ Petitions but the analogy has to be followed and it has to be kept in mind as to whether the workmen were in employment within the period of three years w.e.f. 1-1-1993.

Libertyto the 1st Respondent to move the Court and satisfy it with facts and figures as to why they could not comply with the order within the time limit given . "

under: 8. The Interim Order dated 3-6-1996 reads as

10. The Final Order was passedby the Honorable Bombay High Court on 16-10-2001 which reads as follows:

1. Indian Airlines Ltd. shall form a pool of all casual employees who fulfill the eligibility criteria and have been engaged in the last 3 years i.e. from 1-1-1993 . No casual employees who is in the panel shall be replaced by any other casual employee who is not in the pool . Casual employment willbe given to those placed in the pool on rotation basis , subject to availability of work .

2. IndianAirlines Ltd. shall endeavor to replace the casual employees by permanent employees . The casual employees who are in the pool shall be considered for permanent employment on a fair basis , under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the IndianAirlines .

3. No casual employee shall claim permanency on the basis of having worked pursuant to the present order.

4. Indian Airlines Ltd. shall not be bound to offer work to all the casual employees on all the days .

"Respondent No. 1 shall frame scheme for regularization of the workers listed in the Petitionbroadly in terms of the scheme marked "X" for identified purposes . However, Respondent No. 1 before framing the scheme finally shall assess the requirement of regular work force in its different Departments in Westem Region particularly the Departments in which the workers listed in the present WritPetition have been engaged and also the necessity for alleviation of the suffering of those workers have been subjected to during all these years and fix the strength of work force so that the workers concerned are able go get the benefit of regular service within reasonable time . We observe that final scheme shall be framedby Respondent No. I within six months from today. Needless to say that the absorption subject to fulfillment of conditions of eligible qualification with relaxation of the age prescribed under the Rules . We further observe that till the scheme is framed., the interim order passed by this Court on 3rd June 1996 shall continue to remain operative . "

5. Indian Airlines Ltd. shall not be bound to offer any employment to any employee who is irregular in his attendance , fails , I accept work when offered or is unsuitable for regular employment .

9. Thereafter, further following order in the aforesaid writpetition was passed by the Honorable High Court on 31-7-1998:

"The 1st Respondent shall complete the implementation of the order dated 3rd June 1996 within a period of one year from today. No vacancies of concerned categories, arising henceforth , shall be filled otherwise than from

11. The Honourable High Court of Madras while deciding a number of writ appeals Nos . 808,861 , 895.916 . 951,955 , 1435 , 1450 and 1988 of 2000 and writ petitions No. 4103 to 4105, 4207 to 4209, 5170 , 5171 of2000 preferred by the daily rated casual employees against the Indian Airlines , quoted down the scheme for regularization as laiddown by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of IndianAirlines Ltd. Vs. Samarash Bhowmick ( 1999) 6 SCC 101-and upheld the scheme for regularization passed 514 GI/2006-25 2178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 / ALGUNA 20, 1927

by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions with a direction that for the purpose of consideration workers who have put in a minimum of 90 days service in a year from 1991 would be eligible . In the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. V/s . Shamresh Bhowmick and others ( 1999) 6 Supreme Court cases 101 the Honourable Supreme Court had approved the scheme of regularization for daily rated casual employees working as helpers in Commercial Engineering Stores , Ground support , Categories Canteens and Peons .

12. The Honourable High Court of Madras while deciding so many writ petition on 20-4-2000 filed by the casual employees against the Indian Airlines Ltd. relied upon the judgement of Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 374 of 1996 , directed the Management of Indian Airlines to file a scheme for regularization . Such a scheme was filed by the General Manager of Indian Airlines and the same was accepted by the Honourable High Court and the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. This judgment of Honourable High CourtCourt ofof 1Madras was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court by filing a Special leave to Appeal (Civil ) 1877 of 1998 and the Honourable Supreme Courtwas pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition .

13. The CGIT - II , Mumbai while deciding Ref. No. CGIT - II/ 27 of 1992 in between Indian Airlines Ltd. Mumbai Vs. Their workmen on 306/1995 passed the following award:

1. The Management is directed to prepare a list of workers shown in Annexure II & III ( Ex . ' 16' ) on the basis of the first appointment excluding the persons already appointed.

2. The Management is to consider the suitability of these persons for appointment on regular basis leaving aside the criteria of age .

3. The Management is directed to absorb all these perso ( as per para 2 above) within a year from today as per the seniority list. ( as per para one above) .

4. So far as the claims of other workers who are not in the Schedule II & III deem to be rejected .

5. The Indian Airlines Mumbai is fined to pay Rs. 1,000 for practicing unfair labour practice under Section 25 ( u ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

14. The learned counsel for the Company placed before me 1994 SC 1638 Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad , UP Vs. Anil Kumar Misra 1995 Supp. (4 ) SCC 69- Union of IndiaVs.Pradeep Kuma xe and ( 1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 633 State of Haryana Vs Surinder Kumar and Ors . These three rulings to my mind are not available to the help ofthe Company since they related toAd -hoc appointments inother departments of Government .

It may be pointed out that CGIT - 28 /2000 in which Indian Airlines and their workmen has been decided by me to day whereby the order has been passed , after considering all the orders of the Honourable High Courts

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] of Bombay and Madras and also the Honourable Supreme Court that the casual workers may be considered for regularization and absorbed on regular side against permanent vacancy.

16. The controversy in the instant reference is a limited one as mentioned earlier. The two workers namely Seri Sunil Adarkar and Shri M M Gaikwad have not been found eligible under the illegibility criteria . I do not find any wrong with it nor anything in particular has been pointed out in this regard by the Sangh. The decisions of the Tonourable Bombay High Court are to be kept in mind where by cut off date has been given as 1-1-1993 . Na doubt these two workmen were not the parties to those reference but that does not make any difference . I conclude thatthese workers have been rightly not found to be eligible being not governed by the eligibility criteria. The third worker Mr. S. K. Jadhav did not appear for interview and hence he has been rightly discarded . Nothing has been shown on record before this Tribunal that this assertion of the Company is not correct. Mr. Jadhav did not appear before this Tribunal to state on oath that the assertion of the Company regarding the absence is not correct . The assertion made by the Sangh cannot be accepted since the best person was Mr. Jadhav who failed to appear in the present reference before this Tribunal . Hence he has been rightly not considered for regularization.

Thelast workman is Mr. Sunil G. Rohekar was found to be suitable but he was not regularised under the pretext that the validity of the panel being one year expired . I feel that this is not the true spirit of the law. It is surprising that the workman though kept on panel but not given the job under the pretext that no vacancy arose . I am not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the Company in this respect . There appears to be no real intention on the part of the Management of the Company for regularizing this workman against permanent post. Had it been true sufficient evidence with datas should have been filed by the Company to show its bonafide and truth beltind the plea. Hence I conclude that he is entitled to be absorbed against permanent vacancy.

CONCLUSION

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion 1 conclude on Issue No. 5 and 6 that S/ Shri Sunil Adarkar , Shri M M Gaikwad and Mr. S. K. Jadhav are not entitled for any relief and Mt. Sunil Rohekar is entitled to be regularised against permanent vacancy.

19. In view of the above the reference is answered in the manner that the action of the Company for not regularizing Sunil Adarkar, Shri M M Gaikward and Shri S. K. Jadhav is held to bejustified but not justified for Shri Sunil Rohekar . The Company is directed to regularise Shri Sunil Rohekar immediately against the permanent vacancy.

The reference is answered accordingly.

Justice GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer 2179 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 985.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 172/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-02-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/151/2002- आई आर ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th February, 2006

S.O. 985. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/ 2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the lustrial dispute between the management of Sydnicate Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 14-02-2006.

[No. L- 12011 /151/2002 - IR(B- II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 172/2002

Ref. No. L- 12011 / 151/02 - IR(B - II) dtd : 10-12-2002

BETWEEN :

The State Treasure,

U. P. State Committee

Syndicate Bank Employees Union 211 Vinay Palace, Ashok Marg, Lucknow (U.P. ) 226001

AND

Dy.General Manager,

Regl.Office Branch,

counter of Syndicate Bank at the remuneration of Rs . 10 perday on 21-7-2000 & continuously worked as such till 26-3-2002 . When the worker represented for prescribed salaryvidehis letter dt. 21-3-2002 his services were termined orally with out any notice pay or compensation, in violation of Section 25F. Trade Union has therefore prayed that termination may be held as illegal and unjustified and worker may be reinstated back in the service with full back wages at the prescribed rate. Opposite party Bank has disputed the claim. It is alleged that the worker Sri Arvind Kumar was not appointed as Part Time Safai Karmchari . hence the question of dismissal does not arise . It is submitted that Shri Rustam Sonkar the regular Part time safai Karmchari of the bank and he was attached with the extension counter DRM office since 21-7-2000 till 6-3-2001 . Thereafter another regular Part Time Safai Karmchari Sri AfsarHussain was posted. Arvind Kumar was not served withany appointment letter to fill up any vacancy at the said extension counter . So far as the Sri Arvind Kumar's job isconcerned, it was in nature of contract. He was paid only the actually fixed sum as collie charges which was debited to General Charges Head of the Bank, devoting the expenses ofMisc . & Sundry nature ( as distinct from salary andallowances which is debited to establishment charges account . No Branch Manager is empowered to appoint anyperson in the workamn cadre. Only Zonal Head i . e . Dy. General Manager/Asstt , General Manager is authorised/ empowered to appoint persons in the workman category. that too after following the stipulated rules as regards employment of personnel . Sri Arvind Kumar was purely engaged on casual/ adhoc basis . He was free to leave job and at the same time , the Bank can got the casual work donebypaying collie charges from others . No assurance was given to him at any point of time for regular appointment and he was also aware that he is working on daily wage basis as casual labour according to the needs ofBranch. Payment of retrenchment compensation will also not arise as any person who claims benefit of Setion 25F must be validly appointed in the service of employer . The retrenchment is relevant only when the appointment is regualr. Disputant was engaged as casual labour at the said extension counter & he was paid charges at the rate of Rs. 10 per day as agreed upon him taking into consideration . The quantum of work and the time involved to do the work .

SyndicateBank Hazratganj , Naval Kishore Road, Lucknow (U. P. ) 226001

The union has filed following photo copies of documents;

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour New Delhi referred the following dispute for adjudication to the PresidingOfficer, CGIT -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow:

1. Copy of letter of EC: DRM Office , Lucknow addressed to the Branch Manager. Hazratganj Branch regarding sweeping ofBranch by Sri Arvind Kumardt. 8-3-01 .

2. Letter of Sr. Branch Magager addressed to Chief Managerdt . 8-3-2001 regarding payment of sweeping charges .

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Lucknow in dismissing of Shri Arvind Kumar P. T. S. vide oral order dated 27-3-2002 islegal andjustified ? if not what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled?"

3. Letter of Asstt. G. M. of the bank addressed to Sr. Branch Manager regarding payment of sweeping charges dt . 22-3-01 .

Trade Union's case in brief is that Sri Arvind Kumar was engaged as part time safai karmchari at DRM extension 2180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

4. Letter of Branch Secretary, Syndicate Bank Employees Union dtd. 5-2-2002 .

5. Application of Arvind Kumar dtd . 21-3-2002 addressed to Sr. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank .

6. Application of the worker addressed to O/ c Branch Manager dtd. 27-3-2002 .

7. Letter of Sudhir Kumar Branch representative to theOfficer Incharge Syndicate Bank 27-2-02 .

8. Letter of Officer Incharge EC DRM Office to Hazratganj Branch dtd . 9-10-2000.

9. Letter of Authorised signatory dr . 23-10-2001 .

10. Letter of Syndicate Bank U.P. Shakha addressed to Sr. Manager Dtd. 7-11-01 .

Opposite party has filed details of payment madeto Sri Arvind Kumar paper No. C-24 to C-24/6 .

Trade union has examined the worker Arvind Kumar whereas Bank has examined Sr. Manager Sri Dilip Kumar Arora.

Parties has filed written argument and have heard the representatives of the parties .

Representative of the Bank has admitted the fact thatworker did work for more than 240 days prior to his disengagement in 12 calendar months.

Worker has been paid for 12 calendar months according to the paper No. C - 24 to 24/6 as under;

March 2002 19 days

Feb, 2002 22days

Jan, 2002 22days

Dec.2001 23 days

Nov. 2001 23 days

Oct, 2001 24 days

Sept. 2001 25 days

Aug. 2001 26 days

July 2001 26days

June 2001 25 days

May2001 26 days

April 200001 17 days

Total 278 days

From the above calculation the working days are 278 days immediately proceeding his disengagement in 12 calendar months .

Itis admitted fact that no order of appointment was issued to the worker & no termination order as well . It is also not proved that an officer authorised to appoint a worker has appointed Sri Arvind Kumar . It is also zamitted fact that the worker was daily rated wage earner the remuneration of Rs . 10 per day. Worker has doutted this fact that after disengagement from the Bank he is engaged at the Chat shop of his Uncle.

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] From the documents of the bank it is evident that the worker was engaged for sweeping . It is also proved that the worker was paid from General Charges & not the service head . The square ft . area of the Extension Counter is only 550 Sq. Ft .

It is admitted fact that Rustam Sonkar & Afsar Hussain were regular part time Safai Karmchari in succession in the Branch office .

It could be easily understood that when the branch office & its extension.counter operate their work , then both need the sweeping before banks start transacting the business of the day. In the circumstances it is absolutely impossible to get the sweeping done by the regular part time Safai Karmchari of the regular branch & extension counter since the extension counter has a very little space it required a petty job of sweeping and for this pettyjob it appears that the job was taken from Sri Arvind Kumar on nominal remuneration .

Sr. Branch Manager Sri Dilip Arora has stated in his examination;

"अरविन्द कुमार का नाम मैंने सुना है , इन्हें पार्ट टाइम स्वीपर के रूप में कभी नियुक्त नहीं किया था क्योंकि वहां पहले से ही सफाई कर्मचारी नियुक्त था ।

अरविन्द से कभी -2 कैजुअल मजदूर के रूप में आवश्यकता पड़ने पर कार्य लिया जाता था । थोड़ी देर के लिए सफाई का कार्य लिया जाता था । नियमित रूप से न नियुक्ति की गई न ही कार्य लिया गया ।

बैंक में नियमित वर्क- मैनों की नियुक्ति हेतु निर्धारित प्रक्रिया है जिसको पूर्ण किये बिना किसी की नियुक्ति नहीं की जा सकती है । शाखा प्रबन्धक को किसी प्रकार की नियुक्ति करने का अधिकार नहीं है । "

The representative of the worker has argued that Sri Arvind Kumar has worked in a clear vacancy of Part Time Safai Karmchari at the DRM Extension Counter. Extension Counter is merely an extension counter of the branch of the bank. It is not proved that worker was appointed as rules of recruitment by the appointing authority. It is not established that there is regular vacancy of part time Safai Karmchari at the extension counter . Instead it informed that the extension counter has a very small space and the branch has managed to meet the requirement by availing the services of part Time Safai Karmchari of the branch and in the exigencies the incharge of the extension counter engaged a casual labour.

The representative of the bank has argued that a daily wager has no right to post as such claim is not sustainable . He has relied on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in SLP ( C) No. 7957 of 1996 between Himasnhu Kumar Vidyarthi & Others and State ofBihar and Others .

The said case is not concerning industry the said case pertains to apointment by the Principal in Cooperative Training Institute . The said case was not the subject matter of Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2181

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

beentitled toplaced on the same status from which he was disengaged.

Court, instead a writ was filed in the High Court. Hon'ble Supreme court observed "Every Department of the Govt. can not be treated to be industry when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules , the concept of "Industry" to that extent stands excluded. " In the present case the bank is an Industry.

Another case law placed is 1994 lab IC 1197 (Supreme Court ) (From Allahabad Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar & Others . firstly the said case also did not belong to Industry, but the case pertained to persons working under Education Board and secondly the issue referred for adjudication is not for regularisation.

The conclusion is that Sri Arvind Kumar was casual labour discharging the work of sweeping the Extension Counter besides petty miscallanious job for short spell everydays at the labour charges of Rs. 10 per day. Worker used to be paid at frequent intervals and before his disengagement he had work for more than 240 days immediately proceeding 12 calendar months. It was not a regular appointment against the appointment order of appointing authority . Appointment was not made in accordance with the rules prescribed in that behalf. Facts remains that Sri Arvind Kumar worked as a worker and the bank , it is irrelevant as to from what head was used in disbursing the amount to the worker.

The completion of 240 days work does not , under the law import the right to regularisation . It merely imposes certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of service. This is also settled law that daily and casual worker can not be allowed to gain back door entry in the banks in violation of recruitment rules .

In the present case the bank management was required to give notice , notice pay and compensation to theworker according to the provisions of I.D. Act . 1947 and the same has not been observed . Therefore the disengagement/ termination is unjust and illegal .

Worker was employed for sweeping of a very small carpet areawhich is inentioned in the judgement and was also doing petty jobs at the meagre amount of Rs. 10 per day. He was not a full time worker. He could have earned the same amount from alternative work and is actually engaged on that business in Lucknow, therefore, he is not entitled to full back wages . It will be adequate to award Sri Arvind Kumar an amount equal to 25 % of average pay from the date of his disengagement.

Representative of the Bank has relied on 1990 (60) FLR 672 (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT) The Manager State Bank of Indore , Kanpur and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal ( Central ) Kanpur & Others. The said case is for the workers who were appointed for only 75 days , in the present case worker has worked for more than 240 days before his disengagement in 12 calendar months . There is no appointment letter for a limited period & no contract also . Representative of the Bank has also placed 1999 (8 ) FLR 319 (Allahabad High Court) between the State of U.P, & Labour Court, Haldwani . In the said case the impugned award made worker as permanent employee . In the said case the dispute related to the Irrigation Deptt. which was the department of state. The facts in that was different and in the present case in hand is Banking Industry. The last case law placed before the court is 1994 AIR SC 1638 ( From Allahabad) Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Vs Anil Kumar Mishra . The said case was about the worker working temporarily under State Govt . Rules against unsanctioned post. Thus none of the case laws placed by the Bank representative is applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand the Industrial Dispute Act ( C) 1947 place down as under:

25F : Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No 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 untill-

My award is that the issue is answered in favour of the trade union . The management's termination/ disengagement ofthe service of Sri Arvind Kumar without observing the provision of I.D. Act . ( C) 1947 therefore, the action of the management is illegal and unjust. Worker is reinstated in the service from the date he was terminated/ disengaged alongwith 25 % of average of pay.

LUCKNOW SHRIKANT SHUKALA, Presiding Officer 6-2-2006

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2006

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing 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,

(b) the workman has been paid , at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay (for every completed year of continuous service) of any part thereof in excess of six months , and

का. आ. 986.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कम्पनी लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Govt. (for such authority as maybe specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette) .

[सं. एल-17011 / 23/99- आई आर ( बी.-I ) ] . अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी Itiswell settled law if the services of an employee is terminated in violation of section 25F ofthe I.D. Act . The order is rendered void- ab - initio and the employee would 2182

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006

eligible and entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Sr. Assistant.

That on the basis of the seniority and the qualifications ofthe applicants/ candidates , the management drew up a final list in which the name of the workman appeared at Sl . No. 6 and a total marks awarded to him were 48, for the purpose of the promotion .

S.O. 986.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 50/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Insurance Company Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2006 .

[No. L- 17011/23 /99 - IR (B - I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

Thatfor the reasons best known to the management the persons waybelow the workman in the final list , were promoted in supersession of the workman and accordingly Mr. Geeta Laxmi and Mr. Niti Srivastava and a few others were given promotion whereas the promotion was denied to the work man in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER :

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELHI

R. N. RAY, Presiding Officer

That the workman had been victimized due to his being and active union member , and on the earlier occasion, he was sought to be victimized and framed in false disciplinary cases , in 1995 , but finding it difficult to prove the misconduct, in a fair inquiry, the management abandoned the matter.

I. D. No. 50/2000

IN THE MATTER OF :-

TheGeneral Secretary,

That the officers of the management were also vindictive and biased against the workman due to the fact that he had lodged a complaint to the Assistant General Manager on 09-05-1995 , pointing out the misdeeds of these officers.

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sang , Plot No. 17 -B . Rishi Nagar, Amar Colony, Nangloi , New Delhi - 110041

Versus

The Manager and Promoting Authority.

National Insurance Company Limited.

That by way of discrimination and in order to harass the workman , the workman was also transferred frequently within the department , against which he had made representations and on his protest , he was retransferredto another location i.e. at Divisional Office No. 1. Janpat , but there also the attitude of the senior officers is quite biased and discriminatory towards the workman.

DelhiRegionalOffice I& II, Jeevan Bharti , Tower - II , Level- IV, 124, Connought Circus , New Delhi - 110001;

AWARD

Thatas per the promotion policy of the management. the promotion is based upon the seniority cum merit basis . That the DPC which was constituted for the purpose of promotion to the Cadre of Senior Assistants did not function in an independent and impartial manner.

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 17011 /23/ 99/IR (B -II) Central Government Dtd. 25-05-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

That the DPC did not consider the name of the workman on merits but for motivated and extraneous reasons recommended the promotions of the Junior Staff Members inviolation of the promotion policy and in order to harass and victimize the workman.

"Whether the management of National Insurance Company Limited followed the Promotion Rules Scru- pulously while considering the case of Shri T. K. Gulati . Assistant for promotion to the post of Sr. Assistant ? If not , what relief the workman is en- titled?"

That the recommendations / proceedings of the DPC were tainted with malafides in that the persona bias and grudges of the senior officers played a dominant role in the denial of the promotion to the workman .

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman had been employed with the management since 12-11-1979 and his work performance and conduct had been satisfactory and he had not been communicated any adverse entries .

That the juniors who had been recommended for promotion/promoted were possessing no better merit or seniority than the workman. That one Shri K. K. Bansal came to be given promotion, even though his name did not figure in the promotion list circulated by the notice dated 10-09-1998 and more so when there was evidently no vacancy in the cadre of Senior Assistants .

That the management issued a circular dated 10-09-1998 calling upon the candidate for the promotion to the rank of Senior Assistant , in terms of its promotion policy.

That the non -promotion of the workman is due to prejudiced, baised and malafide attitude of the management against the workman . That the workman is fully eligible and entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Senior Assistant .

Thatthe workman had also applied for the promotion under the policy and as per the said circular as he was fully 2183 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Therespondents have filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that before setting out reply on merits and raising preliminary objections , the respondents would like to submit some relevant facts which are as under :-

workman's name was not included in the said list . The employees were further informed that the aggrieved employees may represent within one month against his/ her non - selection to the concerned Regional Office . The workman however , did not submit any representation for review and thereby he thus accepted decision of DPC and the authority. The workman thus is debarred from raising anydispute now.

Shri T. K. Gulati (hereinafter referred to as the workman) is an employee of National Insurance Company Limited. He is posted in Divisional Office No. 1 of the said Company. The said Divisional Office falls within the administrative jurisdiction of and is subordinate to Delhi Regional Office No. 1 of the Company.

That as a workman was not promoted, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (Regd. ) vide its letter dated 12th January, 1999 wrote to the Manager and Promoting Authority of the Company requesting it to consider the case of the workman. No malafides/arbitrariness were attributed for promotion of employees and/or for non - promotion of the workman . Thereafter the workman moved the Conciliation Officer and upon the conciliation proceedings having ended in failure . theGovernment made the present reference to this Hon'ble Tribunal.

That the Company employs several categories of employees and for purposes of the present matter the cadre ofAssistant and the cadre of Senior Assistant are relevant . The post of Senior Assistant is higher to the post of Assistant. That the post of Senior Assistant is filled up by promoting Assistants . Being an employee of the Company the workman is governed by the Company's Rules and Regulations including its Promotion Rules .

That the reference as made is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed, inter alia as:

Thatsome vacancies in the cadre of Senior Assistant has arisen which were notified by Delhi Regional Office (DRO) vide its Notice dated 15th June , 1998, the number of vacancies was increased upon which another notice dated 31stJuly, 1998 was issued.

Under the notices , referred to above , the employees were informed that eligible employees may apply for promotion in response to the above notices .......

That as per the term of reference the dispute relates to non -promotion of Shri T. K. Gulati by the management ofNational Insurance Company Limited . The dispute is an individual dispute. It was never converted into an industrial dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the ID Act ) as the dispute was never espoused by the Union of the workman of the Company's establishment and/or the workman of the establishment ofthe Respondent Company and/or the workmen of the establishment where Shri T. K. Gulati was posted. The Government therefore , had no jurisdiction to make a reference .

The workman had made an application seeking promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant . That based on the said applications , a list ofeligible candidates was prepared and submitted to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted for considering their candidature to the post of Senior Assistant. The DPC was constituted by high ranking officials of the Respondent Company, being an officer not below the rank of Deputy Manager to act as Chairman and two other officers not below the rank of Assistant Manager .

That there is no averment that the dispute was espoused by Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh (hereinafter called the Sangh ) . The Sangh is not the union ofthe workman of the respondent company and/or of the establishment . It is a general trade union . It is not even a trade union of the workman of insurance industry. The Sangh had neither espoused nor had any jurisdiction to espouse the case of Shri T. K. Gulati . Assuming, though not admitting, that Sangh had espoused the case of Shri T. K. Gulati even then the espousal could not convert the said individual dispute into an industrial dispute for the reasons mentioned above .

The dispute as referred is not an industrial dispute, therefore, this Learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertainthe reference and/ or adjudicate the same .

Further as per the rules at least one member of the Promotion Committee was from the Personnel Department and the other member was an officer from the SC/ST community. That DPC considered all the eligible candidates including the workman and keeping in view the number of vacancies , the committee recommended 21 names from the general category. The committee also recommended 5 persons belonging to the General Category in the contingency list. The committee also recommended Scheduled Caste as well as Scheduled Tribe candidates and also had drawn up a contingency list for each said category of employees . The statement of claim does not show that the workman had ally right for promotion . He could only claim to be considered for promotion . As he was considered for promotion therefore , no violation of any of his rights took place.

That this Learned Tribunal is not a Court in strict sense and has got only a referred jurisdiction , therefore. thisLearned Tribunal is required to see that the Promotion Rules of the company were followed while effecting promotions . The workman has not alleged any breach of the Promotion Rules of the Company. Under the circumstances the reference may be returned and the claim maybe rejected.

Theworkman belonged to the General Category. The persons who had been selected by DPC were announced, vide Company's letter dated 10th September, 1998 the

That promotion is a management's function. The workman had no right to be promoted. His only right was 2184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

name in the seniority list . He is B. Com . and respondents have failed to establishes any misconduct against the workman applicant . Even if there is subsequent misconduct the seniority list displayed as promotion exercise of 1998 cannot be subverted . There must be some reasons for superseding the workman. If no reason is assigned and the workman is superseded malafides are inevitably inferred .

tobe considered for promotion : The workman had admitted that he was considered for promotion . This Learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere unless non - promotion is due to malafides . It is an admitted case that the promotion was in pursuance of and in accordance with the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC ). The workman has not attributed any malafides to members of DPC . Under the circumstances the claim is liable to be rejected and the reference is to be returned.

It was further submitted that the workman has not filed any review for considering his case. No review is required in case his name figures in the seniority list and he istobe promoted as per the list prepared by the competent committee .On 15-09-1998 the applicant brought it to the notice of the respondents that he has been superseded and his super cession amounts to invidious discrimination inviolation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India . Ithas been further mentioned in the letter that he has made a complaint to the Asstt . General Manager but the higher management has not taken any notice of the fact .

As mentioned above the Company vide its letter dated 10th September, 1998 had announced the names of the candidates who had been recommended for promotion by DPC. The employees who were not selected were further informed that in case they had any grievance they may represent against their non - selection within one month. Shri T. K. Gulati , the workman however , did not make any representations which were duly considered . The said act of the workman thus shows that he had accepted the recommendations which werę duly considered. The said act of the workman thus shows that he had accepted the recommendations of DPC . He is therefore , debarred from questioning the recommeridations of DPC and/or promotion of the candidates which was in accordance with the recommendations of DPC . Under the circumstances the claim is liable to be rejected and the reference may be returned.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his calim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

Ithas been further mentioned in the letter that he was issued show cause notice but no action was taken against him . Subsequently as the notice was based on alleged disobedience of Divisional Manager's order and it has been mentioned that he has been wrongly deprived of his promotion . Rs. 500 was wrongly deducted from his salary and it was not paid to him . If there was any grievance with the respondents it was hypothetical and imaginary. The respondents have admitted the receipt of this letter but they have not replied the same. It is apparent from Paper No. 10 , Annexure- C of the respondents that Shri L. P.. Bisht whose name figures on seniority No. 10 has also been promoted . So it becomes quite obvious from perusal of the promotion orders that candidates appearing at seniority No. 7, 9 & 10 have been promoted but promotion has been refused to this workman figuring on seniority No. 6 so the respondents have acted in breach and violation of seniority list prepared by the DPC on the criteria laid down by the respondents .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the workman was placed on seniority No. 6 and Mrs. Geeta Laxmi was placed on seniority No. 7 and Mrs. Niti Srivastava was placed on seniority No. 9. The Respondent have promoted Mrs. Geeta Laxmi and Mrs. Niti Srivastava being placed on seniority Nos . 7 and 9 and they have superseded the workman applicant Mr. T. K. Gulati whose name appears on seniority No. 6. The promotion list filed onthe record is admitted by both the parties . So this is the final list and in this final list the name of the workman applicant Shri T. K. Gulati is on seniority No. 6 but the candidates placed on seniority Nos . 7 and 9 have been given promotion and the workman has been superseded . ThisAct of the management is a malafide act. Paper No. 9 is the list of promotion to the Cadre Sr. Assistant and this promotion list has been prepared from the list mentioned earlier and it becomes quite obvious by the perusal of this listthat 5 candidates of seniority Nos . 4 , 3 , 2, 7, 9 & 1 have beenpromoted but Shri T. K. Gulati the applicant being on seniority No. 6 has not been promoted. There is no question. ofdropping this workman . There is no remark against his

Itappears from the seniority list that Shri K.K. Bansal was awarded 50 marks by the DPC and Shri T.K. Gulati was awarded 48 marks . The name of Shri K.K. Bansal was also left out. This is an instance of malafide practice . However. he was promoted subsequently when he made representation . Mrs. Geeta Laxmi has secured 46 marks and Mrs. Niti Srivastava secured 46 marks . The DPC has taken interview of all the candidates and marks on the basis of seniority, educational qualification and satisfactory service has been given to the candidates . There cannot be a review process to undermine this seniority list . Their presentation of juniors should not be entertained for the mere purposes of awarding them more marks . Even if the committee reviews the cases of the employees suclı review should not tantamount to superseding the candidate placed on higher seniority. If such review is permissible the management can entertain application from the list ofthe lowest candidate and award him the maximuni marks and make the basis of promotion. Policy of interview is not bereft of malafides as has been done in this case . The [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

workman applicant being placed on seniority no . 6 cannot be superseded in any circumstances and the employees who figure on seniority no. 7 , 9 and 10 cannot be given promotion on the basis of review. The process of review in the circumstances will give unfettered discretion and anyone of the seniority list favourite to the respondents couldbepromoted . Promotion on the basis of review can onlybe given after exhausting the seniority list so prepared. Review has been entertained to perpetrate the malafide action of the respondents . The workman applicant deserves tobe promoted along with the junior figuring on Sl . No. 7 and 9, Mrs. Geeta Laxmi and Mrs. Niti Srivastava.

It was submitted from the side of the respondents that there is no proper espousal of the case. There is no proof that the fellow workmen espoused the individual cause. In the instant case espousal is from Rashtriya Mazdoor Sanghtan. This Mazdoor Sanghtan is not a recognized union of the respondents. My attention was drawn to 1961 Vol . II LLJ Page 436, 1992 ( 1 ) LLJ Page 634 at Page 365. The Hon'ble Apex Court no doubt has held that individual disputes cannot become industrial disputes in the absence ofproper espousal. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the absence of espousal the reference of the dispute will not assume the character ofindustrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 K of the ID Act . The law laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as section 2 ( A) has been inserted by Act No. 35 of 1965 for S -3 w.e.f. 01-12-1965 . The ratio decision of the Hon'bleApex Court relates back to 1965. Sections 2k , 2S and 10 of the ID Act, 1947 has been referred to in the judgment cited above . By that time a new section 2 (A) has not been inserted by the legislature in the ID Act , 1947 . The plea of espousal is invariably taken in every case by the respondents . There is no need of espousal in individual case in view of section 2 ( a) which reads as hereunder :-- " Dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be deemedto be industrial dispute. " In view of the insertion of section 2 (A) an individual dispute shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute . No espousing for individual dispute is required . The plea of espousal should not have been taken by the respondents in view of newly inserted section 2 ( A ) in the ID Act, 1947. In the facts and circumstances the law cited by the respondents is not genuine in view of insertion of section 2 (A) and in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case . The law cited by the respondents on this plea of espousal is not applicable in the instant case. The Union is a recognized one .

It was further submitted from the side of the management that promotion is a managerial function and Industrial Tribunal can interfere where a workman has been superseded on account of malafides and victimization.My attention was drawn to 1996 ( 91 ) LLJ 402 SC, 1963 ( 1 ) LLJ 258 SC, 1973 (2 ) FLR Page 396. I have gone through the entire law and it has been held that in case the management promotes a particular workman ignoring the seniority of 514 GI/ 2006-26

2185

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

another rival claimant on account of that his work was not satisfactory the Industrial Tribunal should not interfere with such promotion . It has nowhere been pointed out that the work of the workman was not satisfactory. It was the duty of the respondents to point out dis - satisfactory discharge of duties of the workman. Nothing has been shown of established on this count .

The case of the workman is that discrimination has been made with him and he has been victimized on malafide grounds for trade union activities or unfair labour practice . Promotion is no doubt is the function of the management and not fitment but in case the management is embarking. upon making vicious discrimination on the ground oftrade union activities such malafides cannot be continuanced by industrial adjudicator. Interference by this court is not unjustified. The industrial adjudicator cannot sanction encroachment on the rights of an individual workman . It hasbeen held previously that the management has followed apolicy ofdiscrimination and the management has not promoted despite his name figuring on seniority no . 6 in the promotion list prepared by the DPC . The workman was found qualified for promotion when interview was taken by the DPC and his name was on Sl . no . 6. There is no adverse report against the conduct of the workman and none has been filed with the records . There appears to be no rationality in picking up the employees of lowest serial number and giving them promotion and debarring the workman of his promotion. The Act of the respondents is based on malafides and victimization . The workman has been superseded for no fault of his own .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the respondents that it is not the function of the Tribunal/ Court to consider the merits of various candidates . My attention was drawn to 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ 402 as page 406 SC and 2003 ( 5 ) SLR 728 Para - 8 . It is of course true that the respondents have right to prepare seniority list after considering the merits of an individual employee but if such merit list has been prepared they have no right to supersede an employee . They have exercised their rights of considering the merits of various candidates and the workman has been selected on the basis of merit and he hasbeen placed at seniority no . 6. There is no question of giving promotion to the employees at seniority no. 8 and 9 even if the work of this applicant has becomes dis- satisfactory after preparation of seniority list . Once a seniority list is prepared the seniority cannot be undermined forextraneous considerations. The respondents have failed to show as to why they have offered promotion to the employees of Sl . no. 7 and 9 and why they have refused the benefit of promotion to the applicant . The order of promotion appears to be malafide and vested with extraneous considerations . It is the function of the respondents to consider the merits of the various candidates but their function is over when seniority list is preparedand they cannot be vested with any discretion to pick and choose a candidate having lesser marks and lesser number and supersede the other one ranking in higher 2186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/ HALGUNA 20, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] seniority. The law cited by the management is not applicable inthe facts and circumstances of the instant case .

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई ही सं. 57/1996) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/42/1995- आई आर ( बी. -1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी There is no question of re -evaluation of the merits of the candidates . The merit of the applicant has been assessed by the DPC and he has been superseded. The DPC has recommended him for promotion . There should be none in the respondents to sit over the final decision of the DPC. The law cited by the management is not applicable in the instant case .

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006

S.O. 987.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I. D. No. 57/ 1996 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court -I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure . in the industrial dispute between employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and theis workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2006.

[No. L- 12012/42/ 1995- IR(B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT -I CHANDIGARH

Case No. L D. 57/96

Sh. Balraj Singh S/ o Sh . Ram Singh, Village and Post Office Naraina, District Panipat, Haryana. ....Applicant

Versus

TheAssisant General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Sector 8 -C , Chandigarh ....Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : FortheManagement :

Shri R. P. Rana Sh . V. K. Sharma AWARD

Passed on 2-2-2006

Itwas further submitted from the side of the respondents that malafides should be shown only where evidence has been led tojustified such a finding . It should not be made either in a casual manner or light heartedly. In the instant case malafides are apparent . No evidence for the same is required. In seniority list the workman is on Sl . no . 6 and the candidates promoted have been posted at Sl . no . 7 and 9. Malafides can be gathered from the promotion ofthejunior employees . No evidence from the side of the workman is required . The respondents have filed seniority list and that seniority list has been given effect to but the applicant has been superseded . There is no evidence on record . No confidential of the workman has been filed on the record. Discharge of duty has been found satisíactory so there is nothing other than malafides which have prevented the respondents not to promote the workman applicant. The law citedby the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case . The respondents have not followed the policy of promotion strictly. They have illegally superseded the workman at no. 6 on their seniority list and have given promotion to the employees junior to him being placed on seniority no. 7 and 9. Management has acted in breach of this promotion policy. The workman deserves to be promoted along with his juniors Mrs. Geeta Laxmi and Mrs. Niti Srivastava . It is apparent from the seniority no. 7 to 23 have been promoted but the workman applicant on Sl . No. 6 in the same niority list has been superseded. The promotion list subsequently filed by the respondents is not authentic as No. 95 and 96 appear to be interpolated after preparation of the promotion list . The law cited by the respondents are not applicable in the instant case .

The reference is replied thus :-

CentralGovt . vide No. L. 12012/42/ 95 /IR/ (B - I ) dated 24-6-1996 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication :

The management National Insurance Company Limited did not follow the Promotion Rules scrupulously while considering the case of Shri T. K. Gulati , Assistant for promotion to the post of Sr. Assistant . The applicant deserves to be promoted along with and w.e.f. the promotion ofMrs. S. Geeta Laxmi and Mrs. Niti Srivastava candidates of seniority 0.7 and 9 .

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, in terminating the services ofShri Balraj Singh S/o Sh . Ram Singh , Ex- messenger and not giving the preference during re -employment is legal . just and fair ? If not, what relief he is entitled to and fromwhat date ? "

Award is given accordingly.

Date30-01-2006

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 987.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच,

2. Workman filed claim statement and stated that he was appointed as temporary messenger against a permanent vacancy on 13-11-1991 at Panipat Branch ofthe management and he worked upto 25-5-92 continuously for 195 days when his services were terminated without any reasons and without giving any notice of retrenchment and compensation. Thus the management has violated the 2187 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

provisions Section 25 G of the I. D. Act as after the termination ofhis service one Surjit Singh was appointed on 22-6-1992 and he worked up to 9-10-1993 for 202 days and this fact hasbeen admitted by the management before the ALC (Rohtak). This action of the management is also unfair labour practice . Therefore, the workman prayed for his reinstatement into service with back wages and interest.

3. Inwritten statement management admitted that workmanworked from 13-11-1991 to 25-5-1992 by way of specific letter of appointment wherein it was categorically mentioned that this is his temporary appointment which was made on account of sudden exigencies and will not confer any right on the workman to claim for absorption in the bank as permanent in any category. His services came to an end automatically in terms of his appointment letter and no provisions of any law has been violated by the bank. It is further submitted that the appointment of the applicant was not made through procedure. In the similar manner one Surjit Singh was appointed from 22-6-92 to 9-10-1993. He filed a civil suit against the management for his termination , the same was dismissed . Therefore, there isno violation of Section 25 H of the I.D. Act, 1947 .

4. In evidence workman filed his affidavit Ex. Wl alongwith documents . Management also filed affidavit Ex. M 14 ofJasbir Singh , Deputy Manager. Both witnesses were cross -examined by the rival counsels at length .

5. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman was appointed messenger vide appointment letter w.e.f. 13-11-91 and worked upto 25-5-92 and completed 195 days and thereafter his services were terminated on 25-5-92 without any notice or retrenchment compensation and it is in violation of Section 25-G of I.D. Act , 1947 , as after termination of the workman management appointed one Mr. Surjit Singh in his place on 22-6-92 to 9-10-93 for 202 days which action of the management is in violation of Section 25H of the I.D.Act . Management also admitted this fact of appointment of fresh person Surjit Singh after termination of the workman . Action of the management in appointment of another person in place of workman after a gap of 27 days amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the management . Workman is un -employed from the date of his termination . He may be reinstated with full back wages . Learned Counsel for the workman also relied on2003 (3 )R.S. page 278 ChiefEngineer, Ranjit SagarDam, Construction and another Vs. Kashmiri Lal and another . A judgment of our own High Court and anotherjudgment in CivilWrit Petition No. 15718 of 1996 decided on 21-7-98 GuruNanak School Chandigarh Vs. Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Chandigarh .

recruitment ofthe workman was not for a long term, hewas appointed 13 times for short period and the appointment letters are Ex. M1 to M- 13 in which period of term of his appointment is given and after ending of the contract no notice is required to be given . Workman also has admitted these appointment letters . It is stated in these appointment letters that this is temporary appointment on account of sudden exigencies will not confer any right on the workman to claim for absorption in the bank. The appointment is purely temporary only for the days given in letter or the management unless by written order extend . Learned Law Officerofthebank refuted the claim saying that there is no retrenchment , as there is a written contract ended by afflux oftime. After his disengagement one Surjit was appointed whose services were also terminated and he challenged his termination in a Civil Court and the civil suit was dismissed. The workman has accepted the appointment on the basis of appointment letters given to him and termination is incompliance ofwritten contract : Workman was a temporary employee appointed for a fixed period and nounfair labour practice was adopted as there is no breach ofwrittencontract. The workman was appointed for a fixed period again and again through appointment letters and his services were disengaged and it is not a retrenchment . Management also referred to ajudgment dated 18-8-2004 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. Raja Ram and same is not disputed. He submitted that facts of this case are similar to the case in held and Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in this case that appointment for a fixed period by written contract and disengagement on account of afflux of time is not a retrenchment and order of Learned Tribunal retrenchment and back wages is not correct . He also submitted and referred to another judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court ofPb. & Haryana in case of State Bank of India Vs. P.O. CGIT in CWP No. 18761 of 2002 decided on 3-5-2005 in which it has been held that to claim reinstatement , workman has to show that his services were retrenched but as workman has been merely appointed as temporary messenger for a period of 24 days and his service had come to an endby efflux of time in terms of the appointment letter annexure P/ 2 , therefore no right had accrued to the workman. TheHon'ble High Court found that contention raised by the petitioner deserved to be accepted. From the perusal of Section 2H of the Act the Hon'ble High Court found that it was for the workman who claims any preferential right to appointed to show that his services has been retrenched by the management. In the present case services of the workman came to an end in terms of the appointment letter. As a matter of fact, workman was not employed for a period of 240 days and accordingly provision of Section 2 ( oo) (bb) are duly attracted to such appointments . Hence no case is made out in favour of the workman. Thejudgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.B.I. Vs. Raja Ram of 18-8-2004 fully applies to this case .

7. In view of the above submissions of Learned Counsel for the workman and the Ld . Law Officer of the 6. Learned Law Officer Sh . V.K. Sharma of the management in reply submitted that claim of the workman isnot correct and tenable. There is no violation of provision ofSection 25 G - or H of the I.D. Act . He submitted that workman had not completed 240 days . Workman was appointed in the S.B.I. Branch for a fixed period by a written appointment letters given to him and in this manner as the [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

Development Authority wherein it is held that daily wager and adhoc employees do not hold any regular post and they are appointed for some specific work . Their appointments are in violatiion of Article 14 in as much as they are not appointed by any competent authority in accordance with the rules and procedure . Such appointments arevoid ab initio being opposed to public policy.

State Bank of India . I found that main dispute between the parties solely is that though workman appointed through written appointment letters wherein there is a clause of automatic termination of service on a particular date and workman who completed 202 days of service his services was terminated without any notice and retrenchment compensation and one Surjit admittedly was appointed subsequently to his termination is in violation of 25H of the I.D. Act being an unfair labour practice by the management . In view of the law referred by the workman he is tobe reinstated with full back wages as his termination was unjust.

8. I have gone through the Law referred and riled by both the parties I also rely on judgment ofHon'ble Supreme Court and H. C. ofPunnjab and Haryana referred and relied by Management . In these judgments it is argued before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court the Section 25 Gwill not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case and the order for reinstatement of the respondent was wrong. In this case the management also referred to the judgment of our own High Court in State Bank of India Vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT and another . Our own High Court has held that termination of a temporary messenger for a period of24 days and his services came to an end by efflux oftime in terms of the appointment letter Annexure P- 2 , therefore, no right accrude to the workman , it was for the workman who claim preferential right to be appointed to show that his services has been retrenched by the management. In the present case the services of the workman had come to an end in terms of his own appointment letter.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed in Law referred by management in SBI I's . Raja Ram case . That Court must declare an unfair labour practice of service of a and workman should allege that it is an unfair labour practice. However, it is the continuiry of service of a workman over a period of years with is frowned upon. Besides , it needs to be emphasised that for the practice to amount to unfair labour practice it must be found that the workman had been retained on a casual or temporary basis with the object of depriving the workman of the status and privileged of a permanent workiman. There is no such finding inthis case . Therefore , Item 10 in List - I of the 5th schedule to the Act cannot be said to apply at all to the responderit's case and the Labour Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was. in the circumstances , likely to acquire the status of a permanent employee . Furthermore . both the High Court and the Labour Court appeared to have proceeded on the basis that the appointment of Ram Kumar after the employment of the respondent ceased. also on casual basis , was an unfair labour practice. If this view is to be upheld the respondent's appointment in place of Sooraj would equally be an unfair labour practice and therefore unsustainable . I hold that it is not an unfair labour practice or retrenchment or violation of any provisions of Section 25GH of ID Act .

10. In view of above referred authorities and relying as referred by management. I am of the considered view that workman was appointed for short periods through written appointment letters wherein termination was mentioned by efflux oftime and a date was given at the end ofthe contract. I am of the considered view that workman Balraj who was appointed through Ex. MI to M13 and all the time his services were terminated by efflux of time as there was written contract between the bank and the workman. Therefore , I do not find that any right accured to theworkman for his reinstatement. In view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2005 ( 1 ) SCT 147 referred above , that workman can not claim reinstatement as their appointments are void ab initio being opposed to the public policy. In view of the above . I am of the considered view thatmanagement proved that the action of the management ofthe State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Balaraj Singh son of Ram Singh messenger and riot giving the preference during re -employment is legal , just and fair and the workman is not entitled to any reliefwhat so ever . The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt . be inforıned . Filę be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 9. I have also found from the persual of appointment orders that workman was appointed for a very short fixed term which was not denied by the workman in which his date of termination also mentioned . It is also admitted that workman was not appointed through a regular procedure and it was a back door entry. He had not applied to the bank for a job and without applying he got appointment . Apart from relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reliedby the management which was passed in their own case, I also referred JT 1997 (4 ) Supreme Court 560, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar and Others , in which the Supreme Court has held that termination of service of temporary employees who were on daily wagers held daily wager has no right to posts and their disengagenient is not arbitrary since they are temporary employees . It is necessary for the courts to refuse relief of reinstatement to an employee who may have got entry in the public service by unlawful or unfair mean . If the court finds that workman is beneficiary of fraudulent system of employment or if it finds that he is a back door appointee, prayer for reinstatement be refused even though termination ofservice ofsuch workman may be without compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25F and Section 25G . Undisputedly in this case workman was not appointed through any legal established procedure . I also rely on 2005 (1) SCT page 147 Mohinder Lal Jain Vs. Indore [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2189

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

नई दिल्ली , 16 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 988.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हांगकांग एण्ड शंघाई बैंकिग कोरपोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी 99/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/67/96- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 16th February, 2006 S.O. 988. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID . No. 99/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court- I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofHangkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006.

[No. L- 12012/67/96- IR (B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer : Shri S. S. Bal

LD. 99/97

........ Workman In the Matter of dispute between :- Shri Rajiv Mishra, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Mishra R/ o 13/122 , Dakshin Puri Extn . , Delhi

Versus

TheManagement of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. , 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg ,

New Delhi -110001

w. e. f. 3-10-92 is just , fair and legal , If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ? " 2. The workman filed claim -statement claiming that the action of the management in dismissing his services from 3-10-92 is illegal .

3. Management filed written statementjustifying its action.

4. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein contents of written statement were denied and those ofclaim statement were reiterated, to be correct .

5. The case was fixed for evidence ofthe management on 22-1-2001 and Shri Sanjeev Uppal , Manager was examined as MW1 on behalf of the management and management closed its evidence on 22-1-2001 . Thereafter casewas posted for evidence of the workman on 19-3-2001 workman was granted about eighteen opportunities to adduce his evidence by way of affidavit but he failed to do so . His counsel Shri J. Buther sought discharge from prosecuting the case of the workman . The workman was thereafter sent notice for appearance and to prosecute his case but he failed to do so and the case was posted for argument . Arguments were addressed by Shri M. Dias , advocate on behalf of the management while Shri J. Buther withdrew from prosecution of the case on 30-9-02.

6. I have perused the material available on record meticulously. Perusal of record shows that the workman was provided many opportunities from 19-3-2001 to 20-9-2004 to adduce evidence but did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim and even he did not contact his lawyer and failed to appear despite notice after his counsel withdrew from the prosecution of this case. In these circumstances I heard arguments addressed by Mr.DiasAdvocate for the management and perused the record.

Management

APPEARANCES

None for the workman .

Sh . M. Dias A/R for management . AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 120 12/67/96- IR (B- 1 ) dated 14-07-97 hasreferred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn . Ltd. New Delhi in dismissal of Sh. Rajeev Mishra Sub- Staff, from services 7. Workmanhas claimed that the action in terminating his services by the respondent from the bank of its branch atKasturba Gandhi Marg is illegal but he has not placed any material on record to show that the action of the management illegal or unjustified. The management on the other hand has examined Sh . Sanjeev Uppal its manager as MWI in support of its action who has filed his affidavit Ex . MW 1 /A by way of his deposition . The averments made in the affidavit of Sh . Sanjeev Uppal MWI to the effect that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal and justified have gone unrebutted on record. There is no material on record to show that the action of the management is unjustified or illegal as a claimed by the workman . In view of the absence ofany such material on record I have no option but to hold that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal and justified. Award is given accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.

S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer Dated:07-02-2006

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 989.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हांगकांग एण्ड 2190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

3. Management filed written statement justifying its

action.

4. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein contents of written statement were denied and those of claim statement were reiterated, to be correct.

शंधाई बैंकिग कोरपोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी 98/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/66/96- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006

S.O. 989.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID. No. 98/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, I New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the inanagement ofHongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006.

5. The case was fixed for evidence of the management on 22-1-2001 and Shri Sanjeev Uppal , Manager was examined as MW1 on behalf of the management and management closed its evidence on 22-1-2001 . Thereafter casewas posted for evidence of the workman on 19-3-2001 workman was granted about eighteen opportunities to adduce his evidence by way of affidavit but he failed to do so.His counsel Shri J. Buther sought discharge from prosecuting the case of the workman . The workman was thereafter sent notice for appearance and to prosecute his case but he failed to do so and the case was posted for argument . Arguments were addressed by Shri M. Dias , advocate on behalf of the management while Shri J. Buther withdrew from prosecution of the case on 30-9-02 .

[No. L- 12012/66/96- IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT NEWDELHI

Presiding Officer : Shri S. S. Bal

L.D. No. 98/97

6. I have perused the material available on record meticulously. Perusal of record shows that the work man was provided many opportunities from 19-3-2001 to 20-9-2004 to adduce evidence but did not adduce any evidence insupport ofhis claim and even he did not contact his lawyer and failed to appear despite notice after his counsel withdrew from the prosecution of this case. In these circumstances 1 heard arguments addressed by Mr. Dias Advocate for the management and perused the record .

In the Matter of dispute between :-

Shri Krishan Kaushik,

Workman

S/ o Shri Mahavir Saran Kaushik , R/o D -79 , Shyam Park Extn. , Sahibabad ( U. P. )

Versus

TheManagement of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn . Ltd. , 28, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi - 110001 Management

APPEARANCES

None for the workman.

Sh. M. Dias A/R for management .

AWARD

7. Workman has claimed that the action in terminating his services by the respondent from the bank ofits branch atKasturba Gandhi Marg is illegal but he has not placed any material on record to show that the action of the management ia illegal or unjustified . The management on theother hand has a examined Sh . Sanjeev Uppal its manager asMW1 in support of its action who has filed his affidavit Ex . MW 1/ A by way of his deposition . The averments made in the affidavit of Sh . Sanjeev Uppal MWI to the effect that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal and justified have gone unrebutted on record . There is no material on record to show that the action of the management is unjustified or illegal as claimed by the workman. In view of the absence ofany such material on record 1 have no option but to hold that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is legal and justified. Award is givenaccordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.

S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer

Dated:07-02-2006

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012/66/96 - IR (B - I ) dated 14-07-97 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication :

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी 2006

"Whether the action of the Management of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn . Ltd. New Delhi in dismissal of Sh. Kishan Kaushik Sub - Staff, from services w. e . f. 3-10-92 isjust , fair and legal , If not what relief the workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

का.आ. 990. -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को . को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद -11 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/96) 2. The workman filed claim statement claiming that the action of the management in dismissing his services from 3-10-92 is illegal .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 188/95 - आई आर ( सी- I ) ]

2191

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006 S.O. 990.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No. 99/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-06.

[No. L -20012/ 188/95 -IR ( C-I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 99 OF 1996

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management of Jamadoba Colliery ofM/ s . Tisco . and their workman .

APPEARANCES

Onbehalf ofthe workman

Mazdoor on 21-4-83 . On 19-3-87 said Daso Gorai was in ' A' shift duty from 8.00 A. M. to 4.00 P. M. After completion of his duty he became seriously ill and was admitted in the Company'shospital at Jamadoba at 9. 10. P. M. but hedied at 2. 20 A. M. on 20-3-87 i . e . within five hours of his admission. After the death of Daso Gorai his wife Anjana Gorai the petitioner submitted representation to the management for her employment in place of her deceased husband on compassionate ground as she had no so of her own . But her prayer was not considered by the management though on similar ground management provided employment to widows of different workmen. They alleged that management adopted a discriminatory policy in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for her employment being the dependent of the deceased workman. They further submitted that the son - in- law of deceased workman Shri Nemai Gorai is also eligible for employment inplace of his father- in - law Daso Gorai because he is also to be considered as dependent for employment . They alleged that the action taken by the management in not providing employment to any of the dependent of the deceasedworkman late Daso Gorai is illegal and arbitrary. Accordingly they raised an industrial dispute before the ALC (C) Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimatly resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass Award directing the management to provide employment to the dependent of the deceased workman of Daso Gorai along with consequential benefits .

: Mr. B. K. Bose,

Advocate

Onbehalf of the employers .: Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbd, the 12th January, 2006

AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order no . L-20012/ 188/95-1 . R. ( Coal - I) , dated, the 4th September, 1996 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. TISCO in denial to give employment to Smt . AnjanaGorai wife of Late Daso Gorai isjustified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?" 2. Case of the concerned workman/petitioner according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on her behalf in brief is as follows:-

The sponsoring union submitted that husband of the concerned workman/petitioner Shri Daso Gorai was appointedby the management at 6/7 Pits Colliery as Cat . I 3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claim and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the WrittenStatement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman/petitioner . They submitted that Daso Gorai was employed at 6/7 Pits Colliery of the company on 21-4-83 and died on 20-3-87 rendering about 4 years of service in the colliery. They submitted that as per procedure for providing employment to the dependent of employees a workman is eligible to apply for enrolment of two of his dependents after completion of 15 years of service in the employees dependent register and thereafter the case of employment of a dependent is considered against future vacancies . As the workman late Daso Gorai did not complete 15 years of service he did not get his dependents enrolled in the employees dependents register and for which there was no scope for employment of his dependant existed as percompany's procedure . They further submitted that the female relative of an employee is not considered as dependant because of the fact that management is running onlyunderground mines and employment offemale workers inside the Mines has been strictly prohibited under the provision ofMines Act, 1952. As there is very limited scope for employment of the female workers management does not enrol any female worker as dependant in the employees dependent register. However, in a very special case a female employee can be accommodated for employment on compassionate ground only They disclosed that 2192

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

seniority list of the employees depedants in the dependent register and as name of any dependant ofDaso Gorai was not recorded inthe said register question providing employemnt as per the procedure of the company did not arise. They furhter submitted that as per Mines Act , 1952 employemnt in the underground

Mines in respect of any female worker is strictly prohibited. they submitted that as the mangement is running oly underground Mines there was no scope at all to provide employment to the petitioner workman after the death of her husband , in the Mines .

Smt . Anjana Gorai wife of late Daso Gorai being a female employee could not be considered as dependant and accordingly there was no scope for her employment in . view of non -existence of vacancy even ori compassionate ground. As Daso Gorai did not put reguisite years of service, none of his dependant was entitled to be enrolled for employment and the sponsoring union cannot advance any claim on behalf of any other person . They submitted further that the procedure for employment of the dependant has been adopted by the management in consultation with the recognised union RCMS and the employment procedure ofthe company has been accepted as fair, proper anduniform by the Hon'ble Tribunal , As such no one can claim employment circumventing well recognised procedure by adopting any other rule. In view of the facts stated above management submitted that the concerned workman/ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman ,

4. Points to be Decided

"Whether the action of the management of Tisco. in denial to give employment to Smt . Anjana Gorai wife ofLate Daso Gorai is justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled ?"

5. Finding with Reasons

During evidence od WW- 1 the procedure for employment of the dependants of the employees of the company was marked as Ext. W -4. According to this procedure only son, brother, adopted son , son -in - law, grand son are considered as dependant of employees for the purpose of employment . As per proccedure an employee becomes eligible to enrol the name of his dependant on completion of 15 years of service . He can also enrol the name of an alternate dependant giving the 1st and 2nd choice . However, there is provision in the said procedure for outright employment. In clause 3.1 of the procedure it has been mentioned that an employee who meets with a fatal accident in course and arising out of his duty, an outright employment is given to his dependant irrespective of the fact whether one of his dependant was enroled carlier on the strength of his service . Similarly as per clause 3.6 of the procedure it has been mentioned that one dependant of an employee suffering from T.B. Pneumoconosis , Leprosey and Nystagmus , which are not curable and dueto which he resigns/ is discharged medically, is considered for outright employment , provided he has put in minimum of 5 years of service and that he is below 55 years of age on the date of resignation .

It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the petitioner workman as WW- 1 . Management also in support oftheir claim examined one witness as MW- 1 . Considering the evidence ofboth sides and also considering the material papers on record it has been admitted by both sides i.e. the sponsoring union as well as the management that Daso Gorai was employed at 6/7 Pits Colliery under the management on 21-4-83 and died on 20-3-87. It is the contention of the sponsoring union that on 19-3-87 said Daso Gorai was in ' A' shift duty from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. and after completion of duty he became seriously ill and was admitted at Jamadoba Central Hospital at 9. 10 P.M. which is owned and run by the management but he died at 2.20 A.M. on 20-3-87 i.e. five hours after his admission . Death of that workman Daso Gorai was not denied by the management . It is seen that after the death of Daso Gorai his widow Smt . Anjana Gorai Submitted representation to the management with prayer for employment on compassionate ground. But her such prayer was not considered taking the ground that her deceased husband served under the managernent only about 4 years . They submitted that as per the procedure for providing employment to the dependants of the employees a workman is eligible to subınit application for enrolment the names of his two dependants in Employees dependent register after completion of 15 years of service . They disclosed that as Daso Gorai died after rendering only four years of service there was no scope for him to enrol the name of any of his dependent in the Employees Dependant register. As future employment of the dependant is considered as per the

Considering these two provisions it is seen that management can provide employment on compassionate ground to any of the dependant if an employee meets with any fatal accident in course of and arising out of his duty also when a workman is declared medically unfit and discharged from his service or ifthat employee reigns from the service being a patient of T. B. , Pneumoconosis, Leprosy and Nystagmus Considering the facts disclosed intheWritten Statement submitted by the sponsoring union and also considering the evidence of WW - 1 there is reason to hold that the concerned workman neither met any fatal accident nor he was discharged medically or resignedfrom his service for his suffering from T. B. Pneumoconosis . Leprosy and Nystagmus . It is seen that on 19-3-87 Daso Gorai deceasedworker attended his ' A' shift duty started from 8.00 A. M. to 4 P. M. and after completion of his duty he fell seriously ill and for which he was admitted at Jamadoba Central Hospital of the management at 9.00/10 P. M. but died at 2.20 A. M. on 20-3-87 . Referring a letter dt. 2-12-88 issued by the Director of Collieries ( J ) marked as Ext. W. - 6 the representative of the concerned workman submitted that the deceased worker Daso Gorai died ofT. B. after serving the company for 5 years . Accordingly it is 2193 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

based on certain documents created a new story which was not included in the Written Statement to the effect that the concerned workman continuously worked . under the management for more than five years before his death. In support of such claim the sponsoring union relied on the wage sheet marked as Ext . W- 1 issued by the management in the month of February, 1982. They also relied on two orders issued by the management marked as Ext . W3 Ext . W-3/ 1 . Office order marked as Ext . W- 3 was issued under signature of the Ventilation Officer, 6 and 7 Pits Jamadoba Collierydt . 3/7-6-82 . while the office order marked as Ext. W-3/1 was issued by Manager ( Opn ) 6 & 7 Pits Jamadoba Collierydt . 6-3-1982 . From these office orders it transpires clearly that the concerned workman at that relevanttime was temporary Cat . I Mazdoor . From Office Order marked as Ext. W-3 / 1. it transpires clearly that the concerned workman was stopped from his temporary engagement till further advice and from Office order marked as Ext . W-3 which was issued on 3 / 7-6-82 it transpires that he was asked to deposit certain empty stone dust bags failing which value of the said materials will be realised from his wages . If the contention of the sponsoring union is taken into consideration it will expose clearly that from February. 1982 to 25-6-83 he was engaged under the management as temporary Cat.I mazdoor. It is seen that the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute in between the said period i.e.for the period from February, 1982 to 6/83 and during hearing of the conciliation proceeding before the ALC ( C ) , Dhanbad management issued a letter of appointment in favour of Daso Gorai as Cat . I Mazdoor which was effective from 21-4-83 . Therefore , it is clear from the apointment letter that Daso Gorai came in the permanent roll of the management as Cat . I Mazdoor w.e.f. 21-4-83 . Не died on 20-3-87 i.e. he worked under the management for a period of three years eleven months and one day before his death, after getting his letter of appointment . Prior to that he was on temporary roll from February, 1982 and during that temporary roll his work was stopped by the management for certain months due to dereliction ofduties marked as Ext . W-3 / 1 . Daso Gorai during his life time did not raise any industrial dispute for counting the period of his temporary service with the service period when he got his regular appointment as Cat.I Mazdoor (Ext .W- 5 ) Naturally the widow of the deceased worker is estopped from raising such dispute particularly considering it as a new story when that fact was not included in the Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on her behalf. Ld. Advocate for the petitioner workman referring to a decision reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1607 submitted that seniority has to be counted from the date of appointment and not from the date of confirmation. Considering the decision referred to above there is no scope. to raise any question on that point . Here in the instant case the concerned workman got his appointment w.e.f. 21-4-83 (Ext.W- 5 ). Therefore , there is no dispute to hold that ifany question of seniority comes in, in that case the same should becounted from the date of his appointment . In the decision Their Lordships did not make any observation to the effect their claim that as per procedure for employment of the dependents of the employees of the company as laid down in clause 3.6 management connot avoid their responsibility to provide compassionate employment to the widow ofthe said deceased. Clause 3.6 speaks clearly that one dependant ofan employee suffering from T. B. Pneumoco -Leprosy and Nystagmus which are not curable and due to which he resigns/ is discharged medically, is considered for outright employment, provided he has put in minimum of 5 years of service and that he is below 55 years of age on the date of resignation . Therefore, before taking into consideration of the submission of the representative of the concerned workman it has to be looked into whether the deceased worker was a T. B. patient and if so whether he resigned from his service or was discharged medically and thirdly if he rendered continuous of 5 years of service under the management. If the facts disclosed in the letter marked as Ext. W-6 is taken into consideration it will expose clearly thatit was the widow of the deceased workman who claimed that her husband died of T. B. It is seen that just a few hoursbefore the death the deceased worker fully performed his duty on 19-3-87 at ' A' shift duty. It is practically impossible for a T.B. patient with serious condition to attend his duty of Cat. I Mazdor for full period before his death . However, when the widow of the deceased worker claimed that her husband was a T. B. patient and died as a result of that ailment she cannot avoid her responsibility to produce relevant medical papers in support of such claim . During evidence the petitioner worker i. e. widow of the deceased workman submitted that death certificate of her husband which was handed over to her Advocate is found tobe missing. If for argument's sake the plea taken by her is accepted in that case she cannot avoid her responsibility to produce relevant treatment sheets of her husband to show that being a T. B. patient he was under treatment but that too she failed to produce during hearing . It is really curious to note that in the Written statement which the sponsoring union submitted on her behalf there is no whisper to the effect that the deceased worker Daso Gorai was a T. B. petient and he died being a T. B. patient . This plea has been taken in course of hearing based on the letter issued by the Director of Collieries marked as Ext. W-6. It has to be considered a new story which was not included in the Written Statement . Absolute onus rests on thepetitioner workman i. e. widow of the deceased worker to establish that her husband was a T. B. patient and he died being a T. B. patient . Now let it be considered if the concerned workman worked under the management continuously for a period of five years before his death . In para-3 of the Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union they have categorically asserted that the concerned workman was employed at 6/7 Pits colliery ofthe management on 21-4-1983 as Cat . I Mazdoor . This fact management has not denied. Therefore , considering the pleading ofboth sides there is sufficient scope to draw conclusion that the deceased worker was appointed by themanagement in regular course ofemployment with effect from 21-4-83 . In course of hearing the sponsoring union

514 GI /2006-27 2194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006. HALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi, the 16th February, 2006

S.O. 991. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 294/ 2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Jabour Court , Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006.

[No. L -20012/ 390/2001 - IR(C -I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO . 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT

that the period ofseniority will be counted from the date of appointment ofany worker with the status of casual worker . On the contrary in the decision reported in 2004 ( 1 ) JLJR page 365 His Lordship referring the decision of State of Haryana and Rani Devi and another reported in AIR 1996 SC2445 observed categorically that " since it is the admitted caseofthe parties that the concerned workman was a casual worker and therefore in view of the Judgement of the Supreme Court ( Supra) the dependant of the concerned workman is not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. " Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above there is sufficient scope to say that the period the deceased worker consumed as casual worker canot be added with the service period after he got his regular appointment. Accordingly his period of service will be counted from the date of his appointment in the regular service till his death and if it is so considered in that case the deceased worker clearly completed four years of service before his death.

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947

REFERENCE NO . 294 OF 2001 PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management of Joyrampur Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES

: None

Onbehalf of the workinan

Onbehalf of the employers :Mr. D. K. Verma. Advocate Now if clause 3.6 of the employment procedure of the management is looked into the primary condition which is required to be fulfilled is that whether before placing any such claim for employment on compassionate ground of the dependant said worker tendered his resignationfrom hisservice ordischarged from his service on medical ground or not . Untill and unless these two conditions are fulfilled the scope for application of clause 3.6 does not attract. Here it has been established that some hours before his death the decesased worker fully performed his duties . Therefore , neither he tendered his resignation being a T.B. patient nor he was discharged by the management on medical ground. Accordingly there is no scope of application of clause 3.6 of employment procedure to consider prayer of the widow of the deceased worker.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th January, 2006 AWARD

In view of my discussion above it is clear that the sponsoring union has absolutely failed to substantiate the claim of the petitioner workman i.e. widow of the deceased worker as per clause 3 of the employment procedure of the management that she is entitled to get her employment under the management . Accordingly I am unable to give any reliefto the petitioner workman.

In the result, the following Award is rendered :--

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/390/ 2001 1R( C - I ) , dated, the 7th November, 2001.

"Whether the action of the Management of Joyrampur Colliery of BCCL in dismissing Sri Nepal Mallick isjustified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled? " "The action of the management of M/ s . Tisco , in denial to give employment to Smt. Anjana Gorai wife of Late Daso Gorai is justified. Consequently she is not entitled to get any relief." B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2006

2. Case of the concerned workman according to the Written Statement submittedby the sponsoring union on hisbehalf in brief is as follows :-

का. आ. 991.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुतरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 294/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as piece rated Miner/Loader on 21-1-89 . They submitted that in course of his employment under the management all of a sudden one of his son died on 28-12-96 and for which he lost his mental balance and became a mental patient and on that ground he had no capacity to join his duty . They further submitted that as the concerned workman was not aware of the norms of the management he did not get scope to submit any application [सं. एल-20012/390/2001- आई आर ( सी-I ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 2195 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11, 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management of Joyrampur Colliery ofM/s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Nepal Mallick isjustified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing ofthis case on merit it was taken into consideration whether domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. It transpires further that the said order on preliminary point was disposed by this Tribunal vide Order No. 14 dt . 5-10-2005 in favour of themanagement .

Accordingly now the point for consideration is whether management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman , secondly ifthere is scopeto review the order ofpunishment imposed upon the concerned workman in compliance to the provision of Section 11A ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 .

for leave. However,, after recovery when he came to his place ofwork with a view to resume his duty management issued a chargesheet against him vide Charge Sheet No.BCCL/A/ 99/CS/ 1569 dt . 20-11-89. After receipt ofthe chargesheet concerned workman explained the circumsinces whichcompelled him to remain away from atteriding his duty. However, as the explanation given by him was not satisfactory management arbitrarily decided to hold a domestic enquiry against him and accordingly appointed Enquiry Officer to that effect. The Enquiry Officer after completing domestic enquiry submitted his report holding theconcernedworkman guilty to the charges and based on thatreport management illegally, arbitrarily and violatingthe principle ofnatural justice dismissed him from services .After that dismissal the concerned workman submitted representation to the management for his reinstatementbut to no effect and for which he raised an industrial dispute through sponsoring union for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union on behalf of the concerned workman accordingly submitted prayer to pass an Award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service setting aside the order of dismissal with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

It is the specific contention of the management that as.the concerned workman remained himself on unauthorised absence without giving any information or taking prior permission from the management a chargesheet dt. 20-11-99 was issued to him . The chargesheet during evidence ofMW- 1 was marked as Ext. M-2. After receipt of the said chargesheet the concerned workman submitted hisreply which also during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext. MW-3. In his reply the concerned workman disclosed that for his ailment he did not get scope to join his duty and for which he gave due intimation to the management . When in the reply to the chargesheet the concerned workman took such plea in para - 5 of the Written Statement has taken a different plea . In the relevant para it has beeen disclosed as follows:

"That it was bad luck of the workman that one ofhis children died on 28-12-96 . He lost his mental balance from that day onward and was menatally disabled to earn livelihood for his family thereafter. " 3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement-cum rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . Management submitted that the concerned workman was absent from his duty w.e.f. 28-12-96 to 20-11-99 i.e. for a period about three years without any informantion or taking any prior permission from the management . They submitted that the concerned workman was a Miner /Loader and for which he was directly related to the production of coal . Due to his absence production accordingly was affected. As the act of the concerned workman amounted to misconduct management accordingly issued a chargesheetdt . 20-11-99 to the concerned workman. After receipt of the said chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply. But as the reply given by him was not satisfactory management. decided to hold a domestic enquiry against him , in accordancewith the principle of natural justice . The Enquiry Officer in course of hearing ofdomestic enquiry gave full opportunity to the concerned workman to defend his case and thereafter on completion of hearing of the said enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the cancerned workman guilty to the charges. They submitted that thereafter disciplinary authority considering the said report and also considering all other material aspect decided to dismiss the concerned workman from service and accordingly issued a letter of dismissal . They submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enquiry fairly, properly and in accordance with the principe of natural justice.Accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.

It isexpected that the facts disclosed in the Written Statement should get its parity with the facts which the concerned workman took in support of his plea of innocence while he made reply to the chargesheet issued by the management . Naturally question crops up here which fact i.e. facts disclosed in the Written Statement or facts disclosed in the reply given by him is true . It is seen that in course of hearing of the domestic enquiry proceeding concernedworkman has failed to produce a single scrap of medical paper to show that he was lying ill continuously for more than three years . Even he has failed to prodcue any paper to show that he intimated to the management showing ground of his absence well ahead. Therefore , considering the facts and circumstances discussed above I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman 2196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

wasin performing his duties for years together. It is not expected that a workman will use the place of his work as ofhis choice in the matter of his attendance and work . Here in the instant case it is seen that the concerned workman at his pleasure used to attend his duty to oblige the management otherwise there was no scope to put his attendance in such manner.

remained himself on unauthorised absence for a period of more than three years and he has failed to give any satisfactory explanation to that effect in course of hearing ofthe domestic enquiry proceeding . I, therefore , hold that management was justified in issuing chargesheet against the concerned workman under Clause 26-1-1 ofthe Certified Standing Order . I further hold that management has well been able to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman. The Enquiry Officer after completing hearing of the enquiry proceeding submitted his report which during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext . M-6 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considering the said report and considering the past conduct ofthe concerned workman dismissed him from his service by letterdt . 15-2-2000 (Ext. M - 9 ) . Before issuance of the letter of dismissal management gave further opportunity to the concerned workman to explain the circumstances/ valid reasons to be examined in his case . Concerned workman did not consider necessary to give any reply to that effect .

It is seen that the concerned workman continuously remained himself absent from duty for more than three years and he did not consider necessary to give any intimation to the management . The concerned workman inspite of getting scope also did not consider necessary to explain. the reasons of his absence either at the time of hearing of the enquiry proceeding or before this Tribunal . Therefore, ifthe conduct of the concerned workman is considered it willexpose clearly that he is unamenable. Accordingly there issufficient reason to hold that management was justified indismissing the concerned workman from his service and punishment which was inflicted on him, I believe , is absolutely proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, 1 therefore, hold that there is no scope to review the order of punishment issued against the concerned workman by the management in compliance to Section 11A of the I.D. Act. , 1947. In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

"The action ofthe management ofJoyrampur Colliery ofBCCL in dismissing Sri Nepal Mallick is justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 992.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 268/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/294/2001-आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006

S.O. 992.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hercby publishes the award ( Reference No. 268/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelationto the management of BCCL and their workmen. which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-06 .

[No. L -20012/294/2001 - IR (C - I ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

Now the point for consideration is whether the said order ofdismissal issued against the concerned workman by Disciplinary Authority deserved to be reviewed under Section 11A ofthe I.D. Act , 1947. Before considering this fact two points are required to be looked into viz . ( 1 ) ifthe order ofdismissal issued against the concerned workınan was justified and secondly if the said punishment was proportionate to the misconduct. committed by him . There is no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was a piece rated miner/ loader at Joyrampur Colliery under the management . It is admitted fact that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent unauthorisedly with effect from 28-12-96 . The concerned workman did not consider necessary to give any intimation to the management about the reasons of his absence from duty and in this way he remained on unauthorised absence continuously for a period of three years and therefore management was compelled to issue chargesheet against him. After receipt of the chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply but the plea taken in the said reply goes far away from the factsdisclosed in para - 5 of the Written Statement subitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf. If this aspect is taken into consideration there is sufficient scope to say that the concerned workman adopting a hide and seek policy did not divulge the truth in relation to his misconda committed by him. Opportunity was given to hêm uy thẻ Enquiry Officer to defend his case fully at the time of froaring of domestic enquiry proceeding . Inspite of guting opportunity he did not consider necessary to produce a ingle scrap of inedical paper in support of his clains that he was actually lying ill and for which he was delarred from performing his duties . The enquiry report further shows that the previous conduct of the concerned Komite matter of his attendance in duty was very We arding to enquiry report during 1993 , 1994 , 1995 96e put ius attendance 194 days . 232 days . 167 and it days respectively. Therefore, this report has posure but how duty bound the concerned workman 2197 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

dispute through the sponsoring union before the ALC ( C ). Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference ⚫to this Tribunal . The sponsoring union accordingly submitted their prayer to reinstate the concerned workman from the date of his dismissal with back wages and consequential relief.

Shri B. Biswas , PresidingOfficer

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

Reference No. 268 Of 2001

PARTIES

3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and alllegation which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.

Employers in relation to the management of Amlabad Project of M/ s . BCCL and their workman,

APPEARANCES

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. K. Chakravorty, Advocate.

Onbehalfofthe employers : Mr. U. N. Lal, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry:Coal

Dated , Dhanbad, the 12th January, 2006

AWARD

The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/294/ 2001-IR( C- I ) , dated, the 21st September, 2001.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe management of Amlabad Colliery of M/ s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Ratilal Mahato is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

They submitted that the concerned workman was a badli Miner/Loader at Amlabad Colliery. They further submitted that this worker started absenting himself from duty unauthorisedly w.e.f. 16-2-99 and for which a chargesheet was issued to him vide No. 8531 dt . 11-6-99 . After receipt of the said chargesheet the concerned workman submitted his reply but as the reply given by him was not satisfactory the Disciplinary Authority appointed EnquiryOfficer to hold domestic enquiry against him . After taking charge ofthe enquiry proceeding the EnquiryOfficer initiated domestic enquiry against the concerned workman and the concerned workman although remained present witha view to defend his case . It has been further submitted thatfull opportunity was given to the concerned workman todefend his case and after completion of hearing of the domestic enquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges. The Disciplinary Authority accordingly considering that report and also considering his past conduct dismissed him from service. They submitted that theDisciplinary Authority neither committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice in dismissing the concerned workman from service. Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

2. Case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-

"Whether the action of the management of Amlabad Colliery ofBCCL in dismissing Sri Ratilal Mahato is justified? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

Ittranspires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration whether domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman was fair. proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Said issue on preliminary point was decided by this Tribunal vide Order No. 14 dt. 4-10-2005 in favour of the management.

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was a permanent workman at Amlabad Colliery butunfortunately due to his serious illness he started absenting from duty though due intimation was given to the management by him to that effect . They submitted that after recovery when the concerned workman came to his place of work with a view to resume his duty, instead of allowing him tojoin his duty issued a false chargesheet to him . After receipt of the said chargesheet though he submitted his reply management without accepting the same initiated a domestic enquiry against him appointing anEnquiry Officer and thereafter based on report submitted bytheEnquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service illegally arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice . Accordingly he submitted representation to the management with prayer for his reinstatement but to no effect and for he raised an industrial

Now the point for consideration on merit is whether management have been able to substatiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether there is any scope to review the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman by the management in view 2198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20. 1927

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] of provision laid down under Section 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947.

concerned workman remained himself absent from duty w.e.f. 16-2-99 . As per procedure laid down in the Company's certified Standing Order it is obligatory on the part of any workman to get the leave sanctioned before he proceeds on leave. However, in case of exigency, it is fact that there is no scope to get the leave sanctioned. In that case responsibility is on the concerned workman to justify his claim that under which circumstances he was forced to remain on leave without getting the same sanctionedfrom the management . There was also no hindrance on the part ofthe concerned workman to give due intimation to the management when he fell ill and for that reason failedto attend his duty.But he has failed to perform his duty which was obligatory on his part . Accordingly in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I should say thatthe concerned workman was on unauthorized leave and management was justified to issue chargesheet for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism under clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order . 1, therefore , hold that management have been able to substantiate the charge against the concerned workman .

Now the point for consideration is whether the order ofpunishment issued against the concerned workman can be reviewed under Section 11 of the I.D. Act. Section 11A of the I.D. Act speaks as follows :-

Considering the materials on record I find nodispute to hold that the concerned workman was badli Miner /Loader posted at Amlabad Colliery. It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman without giving any intimation or taking prior permission stated remaining himself absent from duty unauthorisedly with effect from 16-2-99 . Accordingly management issued a chargesheet vide No. 8531 5/ 11-6-99. The chargesheet during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M- 1 . After receipt of the said chargesheet concerned workman submitted his reply. It is the contention of the concerned workman that as fell ill seriously and remained under treatment of a village doctor he did not get scope to attend to his duty. However, he gave due intimation to the management . The reply given by the concerned workman during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext. M-2. As the reply given by the concerned workman was not satisfactory management initiated domestic enquiry against the concerned workman and accordingly appointed MW- 1 i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Sr. P.O. as Enquiry Officer. Considering record it transpires that in course of hearing the concerned workman participated not fully but also full opportunity was given to him to defend his case. After completion of hearing the Enquiry Officer submitted his report which during his evidence was marked Ext . M - 10. It is the contention ofMW- 1 that though full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to produce relevant papers in support of his treatment during the period of his absence he failed to produce the same . MW- 1 disclosed that only the concerned workman submitted Medical Certificate in support ofhis claim. It is the specific claim of the concerned workman that as he fell seriously ill he remained under treatment of village doctor and to that effect he gave intimation to the management . It is seen that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty w.e.f. 16-2-99 to 5-6-99 i.e. date of issuance of chargesheet . Therefore , onus is on the concerned workman to establish

"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court . Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be , is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions if any, as it thinks fit. or give such other relief to the Workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. "

that for sufficient reason he failed to attend his duty in spite ofhis best effort. During hearing in spite of getting scope the concerned workman did not consider necessary to submit necessary medical papers in support of his treatment . No doubt in course of hearing the concerned workman submitted a Medical Certificate . This Medical Certificate ipso facto does not beyond reasonable doubt show actually he was lying seriously ill , particularly when hehad scope to produce relevant medical papers relating tohis treatment. Accordingly this Medical Certificate which he relied on cannot be considered as sufficient document to accept his contention . Secondly it is the contention of the concerned workman that he gave due intimation to the management about the illness but in support of that claim also the concerned workman did not consider necessary to produce any document . Therefore , the plea taken by

Therefore , according to this provision it has to be looked into whether the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman was justified and also proportionate to the misconduct committed by him . It is seenthat the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty with effect from 16-2-99. The chargesheet marked as Ext. M - 1 shows that it was issued to the concerned workman on 5-6-99 i.e. he remained on unauthorized leave from 16-2-99 to 5-6-99 i.e. for a period of about 32 months approximately. Considering the chargesheet it transpires that management directed the concerned workman to submit his reply within 48 hours of receipt ofthe chargesheet. According to clause 27-1-of the certified Standing Order where a workman is charged with a misconduct which may leard to imposition of a minor penalty, he shall be informed in writing of the allegations him is not at all acceptable . It is admitted fact that the 2199 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

Management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India in the light of the observations made above .

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी, 2006 का. आ. 993.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी 119/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/261/95- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 16th February, 2006

S.O. 993.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 119/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2006,

[No. L-20012/ 261/95 - IR( C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT

Presiding Officer : Shri B. Biswas

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 REFERENCE No. 119/96 PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Area No. 6 of M/ s . BCCL and their workman APPEARANCES

made against him and shall be given an opportunityto explainhis conduct within 48 hours . On the contrary clause 27(2) relates to major penalty and it speaks that where a workman is charged with a misconduct which may lead to the imposition of a major penalty, he shall be informed in writing ofthe allegations against him and shall be given an opportunity to explain his conduct within a period of 7days.Under clause 29. 1 of the Standing Order as minor penalty management is at liberty to impose (a) Censure, (b) Fine in accordance with the P.W. Act , 1936 or issue suspension order without wages as substantive punishment for not more than 10 days at a time whereas major penalties include stoppage of increment , reduction to a lower grade or post or a stage in a time scale or dismissal or discharge from service . By issuing chargesheet management allowed 48 hours time to the concerned workman to submit reply. Therefore , there is sufficient ground to hold that intention of the management was to impose minor penalty for the misconduct committed by him. Had that not been so the management would have definitely issued chargesheet giving 7 days time under clause 27 (2) of the Certified Standing Order. In spite of taking lenient view it is seen based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned workman from his service which is absolutely arbitrary as because of the fact that for committing misconduct when 48 hours notice was given to the concerned workman under clause 27. 1 of the Certified Standing Order there was no scope at all to dismiss that workman from service under clause 29.1 ( ii ) . It has been submitted by the Ld . Advocate for the management that previous conduct of the concerned workman relating to his attendance was not satisfactory . Therefore , management was justified in dismissing the concerned workman from service . Submission made by the Ld . Advocate for the management cannot at all be supported on the ground that it was the management who in spite of knowing the conduct of the concerned workman issued a chargesheet directing his to submit his reply within 48 hours as per provision laid down under clause 27. 1 of the Certified Standing Order . Accordingly I find sufficient reason to hold that the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman was not only unjustified but it was not proportionate to the misconduct committed by him. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above 1 hold that the order of dismissal issued by the management is liable to be set aside based on the provision under Section 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947 .

Onbehalf of the workman

:Mr. C. Prasad, Advocate

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate .

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated. Dhanbad, the 12th January , 2006 AWARD

In the result, the following Award is rendered:- "The action of the management of Amlabad Colliery ofBCCL in dismissing Sri Ratilal Mahato is not justified. Accordingly the dismissal order issued against the concerned workman is hereby set aside . The concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in his original post from the date of his dismissal but without any back wages . However, he will be entitled to get the continuity of his service. "

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 )( d ) of 2200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the I.D. Act .. 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/261/ 95-IR(C- I ) , dated, the 26th September, 1996.

accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management of Industry Colliery to issue order of promotion in favour of the concerned workman in Foreman Grade-Awith all consequential reliefs.

SCHEDULE

3.Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement subinitted on behalf of the concerned workman.

"Whether the demand by the Union that the management of Industry Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL has discriminated against Sh . Bipin Bihari Sinha at the time of promotion as Assistant Foreman Grade ' A' is justified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

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

They submitted that the sponsoring union has made wild allegations without any specific demand that the management have discriminated against the concerned workman at the time of considering his promotion . They submitted that the grade for Asstt . Foreman prescribed under Wage Board recommendations and NCWAs is ' C' . thatof Foreman in ' B ' and that of Foreman incharge ' A' . The workmen of the collieries are governed by the Wage Board recommendation and NCWAs and it is difficult to imagine how Asstt . Foreman can get Grade ' A' under Wage Board recommendation and NCWA from Grade-C. They submitted that the concerned workman was appointed as Fitter in time -rated category IV on 18-11-76 and was promoted to Cat. Von 24-5-82 . He was further promoted to Cat . VI w.e.f. 5-2-87 according to the cadre scheme and as per vacancy came into existence at the relevant tinie . They submitted that promotions effect to fill up the vacant post at a particular time if the candidate whose promotion is to be given is recommended by D.P.C. and also if any clear vacancy exists for the said post . They submitted further that Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh was promoted to Cat . VI w.e.f. 1-4-85 White Md . Abbas was promoted in the said Cat. w.e.f. 14-9-85 . These two workmen were senior to the concerned workman at least by two years in Cat . VI and they were promotedto the post nf Asstt . Foreman in Grade-C after completion of 6 years of service in Cat . VI . Accordingly question did not arise to promote those two workmen superseding the claim of the concerned workman as the concerned work man was junior to them . Accordingly they submitted that the claim of the sponsoring union is not at all genuine and justified and for which there is no scope to consider promotion of the concerned workman to Foreman Incharge in Grade-A directly from Asstt . Foreman Grade-C. Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the sponsoring union.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the demand by the Union that the management of Industry Colliery of M/ s . BCCL has discriminated against Sh . Bipin Bihari Sinha at the time ofpromotion as Assistant Foreman Grade A' isjustified ? If so,to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

FINDING WITH REASONS

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman Bipin Bihari Sinha was appointed to the post of Fitter in Industry Colliery on 9-11-76 in Cat. IV. He is Matriculate having training in I.T.I/M.M.T.I and also completed apprenticeship ( Fitter ) under the present management in the year 1975. They submitted that according to the Promotion Policy of the company the workrmen are entitled to get promotion in their higher category as and when they completed 3 years of service in the grade and accordingly the concerned workman was liable to get promotion in Cat . V in 1979. They submitted thatthe concerned workman appeared before the D.P.C. in the year 1980 along with other workmen but management did not consider his promotion taking the plea of missing ofDPC papers . Thereafter by Order Dt . 24-5-82 management gave him promotion in Cat . V i.e. after rendering complete 5 years of service in Cat . IV. Similarly management did not consider his promotion in Cat. VI after completion of his service of 3 years in Cat . V. On the contrary released his order of promotion in that Category i.e. Cat . VI by office order dt . 5-2-87 . They submitted that one Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh got his promotion in Cat . VI form Cat . Vin the garb of settlement arrived at between the management and the Joint General Secretary, RCMS vide letterdt . 16/17- 1-87 and thereafter got his promotion as Asstt . Foreman Grade- C vide Order dt . 14/ 17-9-90 . Similarly Md. Abbas was promoted from the post of Cat . VI to Asstt . Foreman in Grade ' C' vide order dt . 21-9-91. They alleged that the management promoted these two workmen i.e. Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md. Abbas to higher category before they got their eligibility for promotion . The sponsoring union further alleged that by orderdt . 11-9-96 management promoted the concerned workman to the post of Asstt . Foreman Mechanical Grade-C though he was very much fit to get his promotion to the post of Foreman Grade-A. They alleged that due to utter discriminative policy adopted by the management Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md. Abas gettheir promotion in higher grade though the concerned workman is senior in service in Grade and having higher qualification in comparison to those workmen . Accordingly the sponsoring union raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union

5. It transpires from the record that the Sponsoring Union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the 2201 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

raised an industrial dispute against such indiscriminatory attitude taken by the management for consdering promotion ofthose two workmen ignoring the claim ofthe concerned workman . They have also failed to produce cogent papers that these two workmen are junior to the conerned workman. It has been admitted by the concerned workman in course of his cross -examination that as per cadre scheme the workmen in Cat. VI who are Matriculate and ITI passedare eligible to appear in D.P.C. after completion of 4 years of servicebut in case of non - matric workmen minimum 6 years ofservice are required for appearing before the D.P.C. to get their promotion as Asstt . Foreman Grade -C . He alleged that management promoted Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md. Abbas who are non - matric and without having any certificate of ITI got their promotion as Asstt . Foreman Grade- C only after completion of 5 years service . But the facts which the concerned workman asserted in his cross- examination finds no basis if the office orders marked as Ext. W- 1 and W-2 are taken into consideration . These two office orders clearly speaks that they have got their promotion in the post of Asstt . Foreman Grade -C only after completing 6 years of service . MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that the concened workman got his promotion in Cat . V and in Cat. VI after his name was recommended by the D.P.C. He further disclosed that the period is not the only essence of getting promotion in higher category in absence of vacancy. This witness disclosed that promotion from one category to other category depends upon two conditions viz . ( 1 ) vacancy and (2) eligibility as per cadre scheme . This witness further disclosed that promotion to Technical and Supervisory Grade -B is made from Technical and Supervisory Grade-C subject to availabililty of vacancy and recommendation of his name by the D.P.C. Similar process is followed also in caseof Technical and Supervisory Grade -A for considering the promotion . MW- 1 categorically disclosed that there is no scope at all and also there is no provision to get promotion inTechnical and Supervisory Grade - Adirectly from Cat . VI . This witness also categorically submitted that Shyam Bhadur Singh and Md. Abbas were senior to the concerned workman and as such there was no questionat all to provide promotion to them superseding the claim of the concerned workman.

Now considering the submission of the management It is clear that as per. Wage Board recommendation and also as per NCWA specified period has been fixed for getting promotion from one category to antoher category. Untill and unless a workman fulfils that criteria he is not eligible at all to appear before the D.P.C. for consideration of his promotion. Another condition the management considered vital in considering promotion to higher grade is whether in the existing post where a workman is required to be promoted there is any vacancy or not . Representative of the management submitted that untill and unless any vacancy exists a workman inspite ofcompleting the required concerned workman as WW- 1 while management in support of their claim examined one witness i.e. MW- 1 . Considering the evidence of both sides and also considering the relevant papers I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his appointment as MechanicalFitter Cat, IV on 9-11-76 vide office order marked as Ext. M - 1 . It is the contention of the concerned workman that management did not issue his promotional order in Cat. V after completion of 3 years of service in Cat. IV though he was Matriculate and passed ITI. He alleged that instead of giving his promotion after completion of three years ofservice in Cat . IV got his promotion in Cat . V in the year 1982 through D.P.C. He alleged that in the year 1980 a D.P.C. was formed and eligible workers appeared before the D.P.C but the management did not give promotion to any worker taking the plea of missing papers ofthe D.P.C. and for which he had to consume 5½ -6 years to get his promotion in Cat . V from Cat. IV. He disclosed that in the year 1987 he got his promotion in Cat. VI from Cat. V. He disclosed that Shri Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md.Abbas have got their promotion in Cat . VI prior to him and in support of his claim he relied on two office orders marked as Ext . W- 1 and W-2 . The office order marked as Ext. W- 1 shows that Md. Abbas was promoted from the postofCat. VI to Asstt. Foremann Grade -C w.e.f. 14-9-91 after completion of his six years service in Cat. VI while from the office order marked as Ext . W- 2 it transpires that Shri Shyam Bhadur Singh also got his promotion to Grade- C from Cat. VI after completion of 6 years of service in Cat. VI w.e.f. 1-4-91 on the contrary the concerned workman got his promotion in Asstt. Foreman Grade -C from Cat. VI w.e.f. 11-9-98 vide office order marked as Ext. W-3 . It is the specific contention of the concemed workman that Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md. Abbas are only illiterate persons without having any qualification which he possessed but have got theri promotion in the post of Asstt. ForemanGrade -C prior to him before accuring their eligibility. The submission made by the concerned workman finds no basis if their promotional orders marked as Ext. W- 1 and W-2 are taken into consideration . In the said two office orders it has been specifically mentioned that their promotion in the post ofAsstt. Foreman/Grade -C from Cat. VI could not be considered due to non -completion of 6 years of service in that category as per cadre scheme . Management also issued promotional order to them in the saidgrade after completion of six years of service. Therefore, onus was on the sponsoring union to establish that those two workmen viz . Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md . Abbas were junior to him and knowing fully well of this fact management adopted discriminatory policy considering their promotion ingnoring his promotion in the same Grade. It is seen that the promotional Order in the post of Asstt . Foreman Grade -C in respect of Md . Abbas and Shyam Bahadur Singh came into effect from 14-9-91 and 1-4-1991 respectively. The sponsoring union in course of hearing has failed to give any satisfactory explanation but they

514 Gl /2006-28 [PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii)] 2202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006 HALGUNA 20 , 1927

caling delay in giving promotion by the management in CA1. V. as well as in Cat . VI. Therefore, he has been estopped from agitating such claim at this stage. The sponsoring omen on behalf of the concerned workman raised and industrial dispute for getting his promotion in the post of Foreman Grade -A. It is admitted fact that the concerned workman got his promotion in the post of Asstt. Foreman in Grade-C in the year 1996. It has been specifically submitted by the management that grade for Asstt. Foreman prescribed under Wage Board recommendation an NCWA is ' C' and that of Foreman in Grade -B and that of Foreman inchargee is 'A' . Promotion in the post of Foreinan Incharge is made from Grade -Bi.e. from the post of Foreman. Accordingly Asstt . Foreman in Grade -C cannot place his promotion in grade - A i.e. in the post of Forentan Incharge by passing his promotion in Grade -Bi.e. in the postof Foreman. The Wage Board and NCWA have clearly laid down the procedure in that regard. If this aspect is taken imo consideration there is sufficient scope to arrive into conclusion that the concerned workman did not accrued his eligibility to get his promotion in the post of Foreman Incharge Grade-A from the post of Asstt . Foreman Grade- C. However, that claim though has been placed. the sponsoring union cannot avoid their responsibility to justify the same they have taken example of Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md..Abbas but such example cannot be taken as condition to claim promotion untill and unless the sponsoring union proves that the concerned workman was victimised by the management and for which he did not get promotion in the post of Foreman Grade-A. It is to be borne in mind that mere claim cannot establish the right to get promotion in higher grade untill and unless the same is subtantiated by cogent evidence . I have carefully considered all materials on record and I have failed to find out an iota of evidence based on which there is scope to arrive into conclusion that management with utter negligence and adopting discriminatory policy ignored the promotion of the concerned workman. It is evident that whenever the name of the concerned workman was recominended by the D.P.C , he has got his promotion against clear vacancy . It is not expected that just by virtue ofthe period which a workman is required to attain to fulfil one of the conditions to get his promotion in higher grade cannot agitate to get his promotion in the higher grade in absence of any clear vacancy and also if his nante is not recommended by the D.P.C. As the sponsoring union has failed tojustify the claim of the concerned workntan to get hispromotion in Foreman Grade -A I find no cogent ground to give relief to the concerned workman . In view of his prayer. In the result , the following Award is rendered:

"The demand by the Union that the management of Industry Colliery of M /s . BCCL has discriminated against Sh. Bipin Bihari Sinha at the time of promotion asAssistant Foreman grade 'A' is not justified . Conscquently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relicf. "

period in the post is not eligible to get his promotion to higher post . Therefore, it is clear that fulfilment of theterm in the existing post is a gate way to place claim for his promotion to higher post but such claim only can be entertained by the management if his name is recommended by the D.P.C. and simultancously if there remains clear vacancy in the said higher vacancy . Considering the evidence of both sides it is clear that the concerned workman while was Matriculate and I. T.I. passed Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md. Abbas were not matriculate and they did not have any certificate of I.T.I. It is clear from the submission of both sides that the yardstick for promotion in respect of educationally qualified worker is different from that of the workman who does not have sufficient educational qualification. Based on this fact it has been submitted by the management that promotion of Shyam Bahadur Singhand Md. Abbas in the post ofAsstt. ForemanGrade -C were considered after completion of six years of service . The representative of the concerned workman submitted that when these two workmen have *got their promotion in grade -C after completion of 6 years ofservice management did not consider promotion of the concernedworkman in that grade even after the completion of six years of service though he was eligible to get promotion after completion of four years of service . Management did not deny this fact . In support of their claim submitted that the re was no guarantee that a qualified workman inmediately on completion of four years of service will be eligible to get his promotion in higher grade after completion of four years of service . They submitted thatpromotion to higher grade only can be considered if the name of that workman is recommended by the D.PC. and also if there is any clear vacancy in the said higher grade. They further submitted that the concerned workman got his promotion to higher grade immediately the vacancy was available and his n he was recommended by the D.PC. Moreover they submitted that claim of the concerned workman cannot be equated with the claim of Shyam Bahadur Singh and Md. Abbas perticularly when it is very much evident that they were sufficiently senior to the concerned workman . In course of hearing representative ofthe concerned workman disclosed that the management adopted discriminatory policy in giving promotion to the concerned workman to higher grade tinte to time but has failed to adduced any cogent evidence what discriminatory policy management adopted in considering his promotion.It is seen that the concerned workman got his promotion in Cat. V in theyear 1985 and in Cat . VI in the year 1987 i.e. at an interval of 5 years . eaca category though he accrued his eligibility by virtue of his rendering service in that categorywell ahead. Representative of the management in course of hearing has clearly assigned the reason under which circumstances there was no scope to provide promotionto the concerned workman in Cat . V. as well as in Cat. VI at an early date . It is seen that over the said issucat that relevant time the concerned workman neither submitted any representation nor raised any industrial dispute for

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 16 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 994.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन एअर लाइंस लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और 'उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/50/99- आई आर ( स्थे-1 ) ]

2203 Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , Order No. L- I1012/50/99- IR (C - I ) dated 30-5-2000 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the thirty five workmen given in the list are entitled to the benefit regularization/ permanency by M/s . Indian Airlines Ltd. with consequential benefits?"

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th February, 2006 S.O. 994.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2006.

[No. L- 11012/50/99 - IR(C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 28 of 2000

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s .

Indian Airlines

AND

Indian Airlines Karmachari Sangh

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement : Mr. S.M. Dixit, Advocate

Mrs. ChhayaGupta , Adv.

Mrs. Madhavi Dass , Adv. For the Workmen : Shri . J.P. Singh , Secretary, Indian Airlines Karmachari

Sangh.

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the Ist day of February, 2006 .

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) ans sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short ). Vide 2. The matter relates to 35 workmen who are members of Indian Airlines Karmachari Sangh registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926 which is affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh a Federation of Trade Union registered under the Trade Union Act, 1926. The dispute is contested by Indian Airlines Karmachari Sangh (hereinafter referred to as the " Sangh " ) . The workmen are employed by the Indian Airlines ( hereinafter referred to as the " Company " ) as loaders/ helpers in , different departments on temporary basis at Dabholin Airport at Goa. The Company has been employing the workmen on temporary basis for years together. The workmen have worked for more than 240 days with the Company. They are in continuous appointment for more than 5 years . The nature of work of loading is of perennial nature and inspite ofregular working of the workmen , the Company has not made the workmen permanent . The demand letter was submitted by the " Sangh " on 27-11-1998 . The Sangh approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner for the aforesaid demand, The concerned Labour Commissioner (Central) informed the Company and the Company filed the reply asserting that the workmen were engaged on casual daily rated basis to meet certain contingencies and that they had not worked for 240 days in a year . Initial demand was in respect of 32 workmen and later on additional charter of demand in respect of 3 more employees was submitted on 15-4-1999. The payment of salarywas made through voucher. The Conciliation failed with a result failure report was submitted by the concerned Assistant Labour Commissioner: The Central Government of India chose not to make any reference of the dispute with the result , the Sangh had to file a writ petition No. 151 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court . The writ petition was allowed and the Government was directed to make the reference . It is how this reference has been made to this Tribunal .

3. It is contended on behalf of the workmen that the action ofthe Company in not regularizing the services of the workmen is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of India . It is alleged that in view of the expansion activities of the Company it is difficult to believe that the Company does not require the services ofthe workmen. In fact , there is a regular availability of work and the Company is employing regularly the workmen for the same. The Company is denying the need of the present workmen on one side and is employing other workmen to cope with the work on the other side . The conduct of the Management of the Company is in 2204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] violation to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

6. The parties have filed certain documents and have also led oral evidence . The workmen filed the affidavit of Mr. Prashant Vishwanath Sawant in lieu of his examination in chief, being the active member of the Sangh . He has filed his authority on behalf of the Sangh. He has been cross - examined by the learned counsel for the Company. The Company filed the affidavit of Shri . R.A. Kamath, Officiating Dy. General Manager (Personnel ) of the Company in lieu of his examination in chief. He has also been cross -examined on behalf of the Sangh. The partieshave filed written submissions which form part of record.

7. I have heard the parties orally at length . I have gone through the entire record.

8. The learned counsel for the Company has placed before me the orders passed by the various High Courts andHonourable Supreme Court in the following cases:

a. Writ Petition No. 374 of 1996 Rajan Pundalik Pawar Vs. IAL-High Court of Bombay dated 3-6-1996 .

b. Writ Petition No. 374 of 1996 Rajan Pundalik Pawar Vs. IAL-High Court ofBombay dated31-7-1998 .

c. Writ Petition No. 374 of 1996 Rajan Pundalik Pawar Vs. IAL-High Court ofBombay dated 16-10-2001 .

d. Supreme Court-Municiapl Corporation Vs. Veer Singh Rajput- ( 1998 ) 9 SCC .

e. Madras High Court- Asservadham and Ors. Vs IAL.

f. 1999 ( 6 ) SCC 101 -IAL Vs. Samaresh Bhowmick &Ors.

g. Madras High Court- Indian Airlines Canteen Workers Union Vs. IAL .

h. Supreme Court-Phani Bhusan Dutta Vs. IAL & Ors.

i Calcutta High Court-Phani Busan Dutta Vs. IAL & Ors . (which was confirmed by Supreme Court supra)

j. AIR 1992 SC 2130 --- State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh

4. The Company filed the written statement and denied the allegations of the workmen . The Company asserted that it was established by a Act of Parliament . viz . Air Corporation Act, 1953 to provide safe , efficient, adequate, economical and properly co -ordinated air traffic service whether internal or international both . The Company has got permanent work force to carry out the activities with a full fledged Industrial Engineering Division to assess man power requirement based on established work norms . The recruitment to fill up ragular and permanent vacancies is governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules . The deployment of casual daily rated employees is resorted, to in view of the peculiarities of the airline industry and to meet contingencies and unforeseen circumstances such as clash of flights , delays and disruptions , absenteeism among regular and permanent workmen, ground handling of Cargo freighters and tourist charters , BSF, Air Force and VVIP flights and diverted flights etc. The workmen under reference were employed as daily rated casual employees . It was open to them not to report to work on any day. Thus , they cannot be equated with regular workmen nor they can claim regularization of service . The refernce is also made by the Company to the direction given by the Honourable Prime Minister in 1992 to effect 10% cut in the Staff strength and also to the report of the Vth Pay Commission in this respect . The reference is also made to the report of the Kelkar Committee and the action taken by the Company for the restructuring the Company in lieu of the loss suffered by the Company on account of competition in the market from the private airlines . It is submitted that casual daily rated employee is offered employment by the Company subject to availability of work on each day to those persons who are willing to make themselves available for work . Their employment begins with the day and ends with the day. There is no question of any regularization or termination of the services of the workmen . The workmen under reference have not worked for 240 days and hence they cannot claim under the law for regularization .

k. 1994 SC 1638-Madhyamik Shiksha Parished, UP Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra.

5. The learned predecessor in office framed the following issues on 08-2-2002 .

1 1995 Supp ( 4 ) SCC 69 - Union of India Vs. Pradeep Kumar Saxena.

a. Whether the 35 workmen in respect of whom, this reference is made were working as helpers / loaders with the Indian Airlines as casual/temporary workers for about 5 years?

m ( 1997) 3 Supreme Court Cases 633- State of Haryana Vs. Surinder Kumar & Ors .

b. Whether the Indian Airlines committed unfair labour practice by not regularizing the workmen in service or making them permanent?

9. The Sangh has filed the copies ofjudgements of following four cases and also the copy of Constitution of Indian Airlines Karmachari Sangh .

c . Whether the aforesaid workmen are entitled to be regularized or made permanent by an award passed by this Tribunal in accordance with the law?

i Award Copy CGIT Ref. No. 2/27 of 1992 Award passed on dated 30th June, 1995 between Indian Airlines Bombay and their workman, 2205 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

i . Award copy CGIT, New Delhi Industrial Dispute between" Life Insurance Corporation of India" and their workman .

iii. Reported In CLR 2002 CLR 743 in the High Court ofJudicature ofBombay September 25 , 2002 Civil Appellate side writ petition No. 1869 of 1996 " Saudi Arabin Airlines" and their workman .

"The 1st Respondent shall complete the implementation ofthe order dated 3rd June , 1996 within a period of one year from today. No vacancies of concerned categories, arising henceforth, shall be filled otherwise thanfrom the pool ofcasual employees formed and, that too, shall be done strictly in accordance with strict seniority, seniorty being reckoned from the first date ofemployment.

iv. Reported In CLR 2003 CLR 233 the Supreme Court ofIndia March 31 , 2003 Civil Appeal No. 1239- 1244 of 2001 with Civil Appeal No. 1245-1248 of 2001. S.M. Nicajkar and Ors . Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka.

Since grievance is made that things are not above board in selecting the employees for permanency, at every stage the 1st Respondent shall display a notice giving full particulars of the casual employees who are being made permenent, so that other employees would be in the know as to how it is being done .

Notice ofMotion made absolute in the aforegoing terms. No order as to costs.

Liberty to the 1st Respondent to move the Court andsatisfy it with facts andfigures as to why they could not complywith the order within the time limit given.

10. The instant reference is not a new of its kind . In fact , several writ petitions had earlier been moved in different Court of CGIT, High Court and Supreme Court by the daily rated casual employees against the Indian Airlines from time to time and almost same type of orders have been passed with the direction of regularization of the daily rated employees with certain directions etc. In this respect both the parties have filed copies of the citations and this situation is not disputed.

13. The aforesaid writ petition was finally disposed of by the Honourable High Court of Bombay on 16-10-2001 by passing the following order:

11. The first case in this respect is of Rajan Pundalik Pawar against Indian Airlines vide W.P. No. 374 of 1996 before the Honourable High Court of Bombay in which consent order was passed on 03-6-1996 . The consent order reads as follows:

1. Indian Airlines Ltd. shall form a pool of all casual employees who fulfill the eligibility criteria and have been engaged in the last 3 years i.e. from 1-1-1993 . No casual employees who is in the panel shall be replaced by any other casual employee who is not in the pool . Casual employment will be given to those placed in the pool on rotation basis, subject to availability ofwork.

2. IndianAirlines Ltd, shall endeavour to replace the casual employees by permanent employees. The casual employees who are in the pool shall be considered for permanent employment on a fairbasis, under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules ofthe Indian Airlines.

"Respondent No. 1 shall frame scheme for regularization of the workers listed in the Petition broadly in terms of the scheme marked "X" for identification purposes. However, Respondent No. 1 before framing the scheme finally shall assess the requirement of regular work force in its différent Departments in Western Region , particularly, the Departments in which the workers listed in the present writ petition have been engaged and also the necessity for alleviation of the suffering of those workers have been subjected to during all these years and fix the strength of work force so that the workers concerned are able to get the benefit of regular service within reasonable time . We observe that final scheme shall be framed by Respondent No. 1 within six months from today. Needless to say that the absorption of the workers listed in the Petition in regular service shall be subject to fulfillment of conditions of eligible qualification with relaxation of the age prescribed under the Rules . We further observe that till the scheme is framed, the interim order passed by this Court on 3rd June, 1996 shall continue to remain operative.

3. No casual employee shall claim permanency on the basis of having worked pursuant to the present order.

4. Indian Airlines Ltd. shall not be bound to offer work to all the casual employees on all the days .

5. Indian Airlines Ltd. shall not be bound to offer any employment ta any casual employee who is irregular in his attendance, fails to accept work when offered or is unsuitable for regular employment.

14. In the case of Municipal Corporation Vs. Veer Singh Rajput-( 1998 ) 9 SCC the Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with the case of daily rated workers against Municipal Corporation directed the Municipal Corporation to consider the said retrenched persons on dailywages in preference to others by waiving the age bar if necessary, provided they were otherwise qualified and eligible for the post .

12. Thereafter, further following order in the aforesaid writ petition was passed by the Honourable High Court on 31-7-1998.

15. The Honourable High Court of Madras while deciding a number of writ appeals No. 808 , 861 , 895 , 916 , 951 , 955 , 1435 , 1450 and 1988 of 2000 and writ petitions 2206

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11, 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

adhoc employees who had put in one year service since it createda problem ofwholesome regularization. It however, directed the Government to take care of temporary and adhoc employees and form a scheme for regularization for those adhoc appointees continued for fairly long spell .

19. The learned counsel for the Company placed before me 1994 SC 1638 Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad , UP vs. Anil Kumar Misra , 1995 Supp (4 ) SCC 69-Union ofIndiavs. Pradeep Kumar Saxena and ( 1997 ) 3 Supreme Court cases 633 State of Haryana vs. Surinder Kumar and Ors .These three rulings to my mind are not available to the help of the Company since they related to Ad-hoc appointments in other departments of Government .

No. 4103 to4105, 4207 to 4209, 5170, 5171 of2000 preferred by the daily rated casual employees against the Indian Airlines, quoted down the scheme for regularization as laiddown by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. v/s . Samaresh Bhowmick ( 1999) 6 SCC 101 -and upheld the scheme for regularization passed by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid writ petitions with a direction that for the purpose of consideration, workers who have put in a minimum of 90 daysservice in a year from 1991 would be eligible . In the case of Indian Airlines Ltd. v/ s . Shamresh Bhowmick and others ( 1999 ) 6 Supreme Court cases 101 the Honourable Supreme Court had approved the scheme of regularization for daily rated casual employees working as Helpers in Commercial , Engineering , Stores , Ground Support , Catering Canteens and Peons .

16. The Honourable High Court of Madras while deciding so many writ petitions on 20-4-2000 filed by the casual employees against the Indian Airlines Ltd. relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 374 of 1996, directed the Management of Indian Airlines to file a scheme for regularization . Such a scheme was filed by the General Manager of Indian Airlines and the same was accepted by the Honourable High Court and the writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. This judgment of Honourable High Court of Madras was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Courtby filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil ) 1877 of 1998 and the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition.

17. The CGIT - II , Mumbai while deciding Ref. No. CGIT - II/ 27 of 1992 in between Indian Airlines Ltd. Mumbai v/s . Their workmen on 306/1995 passed the following award:

1. TheManagement is directed to prepare a list of workers shown in Annexure II & III (Ex . ' 16 ') on the basis of the first appointment excluding the persons already appointed.

2. The Management is to consider the suitability ofthese persons for appointment on regular basis leaving aside the criteria of age .

3. The Management is directed to absorb all these persons (as per para 2 above) within a year from today as per the seniority list. (as per para one above).

4. So far as the claims of other workers who are not in the Schedule II & III deem to be rejected.

5. The Indian Airlines , Mumbai is fined to pay Rs, 1000 for practicing unfair labour practice under Section 25(u) . of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

20. The facts of the instant reference are not much in dispute since it is the admitted position that the workmen had been the casual employees of the Company and they were being employed as and when the need arose . The dispute is about the number of days for which the particular employee worked with the Company. The specific assertion of the Sangh from the very beginning whenthe demand was raised for regularization and matter was put before the concerned Conciliation Officer that all the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a year . The Company denied to this but no reliable evidence is being placed on record either before the Conciliation Officer or before this Tribunal to rebut the assertion of the Sangh that the workmen worked for more than 240 days . The Company filed the evidence before this Tribunal to show that the workmen did not work for 240 days by filing a chart in this respect but the same is not acceptable in toto more so in view of the admission made by Shri M. A. Kamath , Dy . General Manager ( Personnel ) whereby he stated that There are no rules for employment of casual employment . There are Administrative instructions. The instructions are issued from the Headquarters of the Indian Airlines . The Regional Headquarters also issue instruction . I have not produced any administrative instruction regarding the deployment ofcasual, employèe . We have register in which we have enter the name ofthe workman who are working as casual employee. The casual employee report to the hiring Officer. Thereafter, according to the exigency of circumstances and requirement of the airline, the casual worker are deployed. Care is taken to see that as far as possible the workman was given the job on previousday is taken back for the work on the next day. We do not maintain a register showing that on a particular day how many person have reported for work and deploy them as far as possible for 90 days continuously.After 90 days the Indian Airlines does not employ the same person on the 91st day ifother persons are available for work . The preference is given to the other person. This procedure is adopted because the Headquarters has instructed us not to employ a person beyond 90days ifpossible . Those instructions have not beenproduced before this Tribunal.

18. In AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2130 State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh , the Honourable Supreme Court did not approve the blanket regularization of the workers and 2207 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

CONCLUSION :

21. Mr. Kamath also admitted that he maintained Attendance register showing the workmen who worked for half day or full day. The Attendance register is not produced before the Tribunal . The payment of wages is made in cash to the workmen. The mode of payment through vouchers was also there . The temporary permits are issued to the workers for working with the Airlines . He specifically stated that we do not employ person ordinarily for more than 90 days in a period of 12 months.

25. Keeping in mind, the entire evidence on record and the discussions made above , I conclude all the three issues framed in this reference in favour of the workmen to the extent that all the workmen under reference are entitled tobe considered for regular work subject totheir suitability leaving aside the criteria of age bar and that they shall be absorbed on a permanent basis and as when opportunity arises on the availability of the vacancies in the permanent cadre . The workmen are not entitled to any other relief at this juncture. The compliance of the order bemade by the Company within a period of four months from today positively.

26. The reference is accordingly answered . JusticeGhanshyam Dass, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 फरवरी , 2006

22. In view of the evidence available on record , it may be safely concluded that all the workmen in the reference had not worked for more than 240 days in a year but this much is very very clear that each of the workmen had worked for more than 90 days in a year and hence each one of them is to be considered for regularization in view of the case of Sharmesh Bhowmick ( supra) . All the objections which have been raised in the instant reference had been raised earlier in almost all the cases referredto above before High Courts and the final order for consideration of regularization after forming a pool and scheme for it had been passed therein . Thus , the objections raised by the Company in the instant reference. lose their importance.

का. आ. 995.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.पी.सी. एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई - Ⅰ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 06/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो.केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-02- 2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/62/97- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 16th February , 2006

S.O. 995. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No: 06/ 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BPCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-02-2006 .

[No. L-30012/62/97 - IR(C -1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

23. The material development has taken place in this case, since the workmen raised the instant industrial dispute each one of the workman has been deprived of the work . The workmen have not been taken on duty after the instant reference . This factual position is admitted. The learned counsel for the Company on being asked to explain it, submitted vehemently that the workmen did not report for duty and did not make themselves available for work and hence they were not taken on duty. To my mind , the explanation is wholly unconceivable . It is difficult to swallow that the contesting workmen did not reports for duty and hence they were not giving any dutyby the Company . The reason appears to be obvious that the Company got unhappy on account of raising of industrial dispute and for that reason did not allow them to work even for a day after the reference . This appears to be a noble device and calculated strategy to remove the workmen from service on the part of the Company. It amounts to be a case of termination of services though there is no written order for it . The legal position is clear that such type of removal from service amounts to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act which cannot be appreciated being within the purview of unfair labour practice punishable under Section 25 - U of the Act.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT 06 of 1999 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.. AND

TheirWorkmen

24. It may also be observed that the Company has submitted scheme for regularization before the High Courts but there does not appear to be earnest desire and urge on the part of the Management of Company to implement the said scheme in true spirits since the matter is hanging for the last several years and Company is still contesting the cases tooth and nail for no use .

2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement : Mr. R.S. Pai , Advocate For the workman : Mr. Abhay Kulkarni , Advocate State : Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 3 rd day of February, 2006

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub -section 1 and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act for short) . Vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , Order No. L- 30012 /62 /97 - IR(B - 1 ) dated 07/1/1999. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

" क्या बी.पी.सी. एल. द्वारा श्री सोमनाथ वामन यादव को सेवा से बर्खास्तकिया जाना विधिवत एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो वे किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? "

2. Mr. Somnath Yadav, working as a Watchman with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as " Corporation" ) has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 9/8/1984 after holding a departmental enquiry for misconduct.

3. The contention of the workman is that the domestic enquiry had not been just and fair and that the principle of natural justice had not been followed. The Industrial Dispute had been raised since the Corporation dismissed the workman illegally and moved an Approval application under Section 33 ( 2 ) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to as the " Act " which was allowed by the CGIT - 2 vide Approval of Application No. CGIT- 2/ 04 vide judgement dated 2/6/1995 . The Conciliation fled before the concerned Conciliation Officer. The failure report was submitted to the Government which led to the making of the instant reference by the Central Government.

4. The contention of the Corporation is that the dismissal has been in accordance with law after holding the full fledged domestic enquiry according to law. It is also submitted that the Approval Application has been granted by the Competent Court of CGIT - 2 of Bombay after full contest and hearing of both the parties. The judgement of the Approval Application amounts to resjudicata.

5. The objection of the Corporation that the judgement of the Approval Application amounts to resjudicata has already been repelled by this Tribunal vide order dated 10/4/2006. Hence, this objection does not have any legal sanctity at this juncture.

6. The controversy which is to be decided first is to as to whether the domestic enquiry is fair and proper. The workman filed his own affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief in support of his case and he has been cross -examined by the learned counsel for the Corporation.

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 7. The Corporation filed the affidavit of Shri Narayan Rao Vankina working as Deputy General Manager with the Corporation in lieu of his examination -in - chief and he has been cross - examined by the learned counsel for the workman. He was appointed as the Enquiry Officer in this case vide letter dated 2/8/1992 and he held a domestic enquiry which was duly contested by the workman along with his defence representative Mr. P.S. Sawant, Vice-President of Maharashtra General Kamgar Union through whom the present industrial dispute and the reference has been contested. The Enquiry Officer has proved the enquiry proceedings and all the documents filedbefore it and relied upon while submitting the enquiry report . The enquiry proceedings contains 1 to 166 pages . The enquiry report (page 167 to 177 ) was submitted to the Competent Authority. The enquiry was in accordance with the Standing Orders . The dismissal order has been passed by the Competent Authority.

8. Both the parties have filed the written submissions and I have heard them orally also . The workman has challenged the enquiry firstly on the ground offalsity and perversity of the charge-sheet . The charge- sheet dated 19/8/1992 issued to the workman reads as under:

SUB : YOURSELF : CHARGE SHEET

It is reportedto me as under :

On 7/8/1992, you were on duty in the 3rd shift from 23.30 hrs. of 7-8-92 to 07/30 hrs . On 8-8-92 and wereposted at the ' C' Installation main gate. AtAbout 1.45hrs. on 8-8-92, Shri D.D. shinde, Operations Officer and Shift- in- charge in the 3rd shift, came to ' C' Installation along with Shri B.L. Wagre, Watchman Naikfor conducting security check.

Shri Shinde entered the ' C ' Installation followed by Shri, Wagre Security Naik on duty. Shri Shinde asked you as towhere the 2nd watchman in the ' C' Installation was to which you indicated by your hand that he was somewhere in the rear side . After Shri Shinde walked a distance inside the Installation , he looked back and noticed Shri Wagre and you were involved in a conversation and thereafter Shri Wagre entered the Watchman's cabin at the ' C' gate and you moved towards Shri Shinde. As Shri Shinde could not see the 2nd Watchman in the direction indicated by you , he asked you once again about him to which you replied "पाठीमाणे कोणीतरी आदे तरी तिकडे जा" Asindicated by you, Shri Shinde movedfurther towards the grease barrel shed. As he was walking, he felt that someone was following him and on looking back, he saw that you had left your post at the ' C' gate andwere following and catching up with him. As Shri Shinde reached near the grease barrel shed, you without any provocation assaulted Shri Shinde byfisting on his eye and nose/body, as a result of grievous injuries to his 2209 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

person and breaking ofone tooth. While assaulting Shri Shinde, You said"

misconduct on your part and will be paid subsistence allowance as per applicable rules . "

"तूआज ड्यूटी सोपणान्था वॉचमनला पकडतोस काय ! त्यांचा रिपोर्ट करतोस काय ! केलया पैर्धरा वर्षात आमचा कोणी रिपोर्ट केला नाही आणि तू दोन मदिन्यात आमरया दहा वाचमनना ओपताना पकडलास. बोल पुन्द्रा असे कररील काय ? "

Shri Shinde was loudly and continuously crying forhelp andpleading mercyfrom you and beggingthat you should not beat him anymore . You however, continued to constantly kick and assault Shri Shinde andforcibly extracted assurancesfrom Shri Shinde that hewould not in future report against the watchmen to thehigher authorities. As Shri Shinde was attempting to stand up, you pulled him by his collar and threatened him as under :

9. I feel that all the points raised in the written submissions have no force. It is a case of assault by the workman upon Mr. Shinde who was Operation Officer, Shift in charge of the 3rd shift and as such visited " C " Installation along with Mr. R.L. Waghare, Watchman Naik for conducting check on the night of 07-8-92 . It is submitted by the workman that he was not one of 10 watchman against whom Mr. Shinde had earlier submitted his report about the deriliction of duty. It is submitted that it does not appeal to sense that the workman would all of sudden make a assault upon Mr. Shinde when he had a clean past record of service and never indulged in any unwanted situation. It is not probable that the workman would thereby put his livelihood in jeopardy. To my mind, all these things cannot be a ground of attack. One cannot read the mind of a particular person at a particular time . It cannotbe said as to under what circumstance and as to under what provocation , the workman acted in the instant case which led to assault upon Mr. Shinde. No doubt, the charge sheet has been issued under clause 28 ( 5) Certified Standing Order for assault but a charge sheet has been issued for misconduct under clause 28 for creating:

हीशिक्षा भी तुला दहा वाचमनना झोपताना पकडून रिपोर्ट केल्याबबदूल देत आहे . याद रख शिंदे येथून पुठे तूविचार करना बध. मी माझ्या दप्र लोकांसाठी माझे आकुष्यखर्ची धालीन पण तुला पिर्वत सोडणार नाही .जर या गोष्टीचा रिपोर्टपोलीस मदचे किंवा वरिष्ठांन केलास तर मी जाईनच पण मी तुला सांडणार नाही . मी मरात्याचा भगीदर तुला मारना मरने आता तू माझा रात्र आणखी वाढारयाच आत गेरच्या बाहेर चालता हो आणि विचार करून निर्णय धे. "

(a) Riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour while on duty on the premises of the Installation.

(b) Commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the Companypremises .

You then dragged Shri Shinde to the gate and pushedhim out ofthe gate of' C' Installation. The above act on your part tantamount to grave and serious misconduct. If proved, and you are charged with the following:

I do not feel that non - mentioning of the issuance of the charge sheet under clause 28 (5 ) of Certified Standing Orders makes the charge sheet perverse and false . The non-production of Mr. Waghare would be dealt later on.

(a) Riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour while on duty on the premises of the Installation.

(b) Commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the Companypremises.

An enquiry into the above charges will be conducted by SriV. Narayana Rao on 03-9-1992 at 1000 hrs . at Sewree Benzine Installation when you are required to be present. You may bring afellow workman to assist you in your defence. If, You so desire and produce such documents and/or witnesses as have a bearing on the charge.

Ifyou fail to attend or having attended do not participate in the above enquiry, it will proceed ex parte.

Meanwhile, ifyou so desire, you may submityour explanation inwriting to the undersigned within 7days ofreceipt ofthis letter by you.

10. The next ground of attack is that there has been a violation of principle of natural justice . It is firstly submitted that the enquiry proceedings has been conducted in English and it was declared as such by the Enquiry Officer on 15-9-1992 . It is submitted that the workman who is ailliterate person do not know English and he simply knew Marathi or Hindi . I have gone through the entire material on this point and I do not find anything wrong in it nor I find that any prejudice has been caused to the workman. In fact, the workman contested the enquiry along with his defence representative . In fact, the workman had agreed for the conduction of the enquiry in English . Inthe case ofRavaindra Umesh Gokarna & Ors . v/s . GKW Ltd. and Ors . 1992 ( I ) CLR page 792 (Bom ), the Honourable Bombay High Court considered the question raised in the domestic enquiry in which the proceedings were recorded in English and held that the enquiry could not be said to be vitiated on that account .

As advised by our letter SEW : 103 : CON dated 10-8-92, please note that you continue to be on suspension pending enquiry in the above alleged

11. It is next submitted that the Enquiry Officer took on record certain documents presented by the 514 GI/2006-29 2210

ALGUNA 20 , 1927

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /

[PART II -SEC . 3( ii) ]

ofthe domestic enquiry nor it helps in showing that the domestic enquiry report may not be accepted .

13. It may be mentioned that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case ofManagement ofKrishnakali Tea Estate Vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangh & 2004 III CLR page 755 held that acquittal by Criminal Cost has no bearing on the enquiry proceedings . The Crininal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different . The acquittal of the workanan in a criminal trial does not affect the departmenta! enquiry.

Presenting Officer, the authors of which were not examined. It is submitted that the medical certificate should have been got authenticated by examining the Doctor. Certain error is pointed out in the date mentioned by the Doctor below the signature . I feel that this is an inadvertent mistake and this does not falsify the entire medical report nor it can be inferred that the medical report is fabricated document. It is further submitted that the defence representative had demanded the copies of certain filed documents but the Enquiry Officer gave a ruling that he would decide the enquiry on the basis of the documents presented before it by the Presenting Officer. 1 do not find anything wrong in it. The enquiry hadbeen contested fully by the workman along with his defence representative on each and every date and I do not find any material for holding the violation of principle ofnaturaljustice.

14. As mentioned earlier, the Industrial Court is only required to see as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence on record although it has the power to differ from the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer even if the enquiry is found to be just and fair. In the instant case , I find that there is no sufficient evidence available on record on the basis of which the Enquiry Officer rightly concluded that the charge of misconduct was made out against the workman. Thejudgment ofCGIT- 2,Mumbai in the Approval application does not operate as resjudicata but I feel that it is a good circumstance in favour ofthe Corporation in the instant case for the reason that the Approval application under section 33 (2 ) (b ) of the Act was granted by CGIT-2 Mumbai , after full contest by the parties and taking into account all the facts and circumstances .

15. On a consideration of the entire record l conclude that there is no material to conclude that the enquiry proceedings have not been drawn in a just and fair manner. There is nothing to show the violation of principle of natural justice nor there is anything to show any perversity cither in the findings of the Enquiry Officer or in the enquiry proceedings . The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry in presence of the workman who actually availed full opportunity to defend himself on each and every date throughout the enquiry along with his defence representative .

16. The report of the EnquiryOfficer was considered by the Competent Authority. The show cause notice was issued to the workman. The punishment order has been passed in accordance with law by the Competent Authority. The punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate/or harsh in view of the charge of assault upon the Senior Officer by a subordinate employce.

17. Conclusion : The dismissal of workman Mr. Somnath Yadav by the Corporation is held to be justified and hence , the workman is not entitled to any relief.

18. The reference is answered accordingly .

12. The next ground of attack is about the perversity in the enquiry report and the findings . It is submitted that the enquiry is based mainly on the evidence of Mr. Shinde which does not get corroboration from any other evidence . In fact , Mr. Waghare who was admittedly present, at the time of the incident and was a star witness in this case has not been examined before the Enquiry Officer. I do feel that Mr. Waghare shouid have been examined before the Enquiry Officer but non- examination does not make the enquiry report perverse . The law is settled that enquiry report is to be based on the pre -ponderence of probability. The law is also settled that the strict proof of charge as required under the Criminal Procedure Code before the Criminal Court is not required before the Enquiry Officer . It has only to be seen as to whether the enquiry report is based on sufficient evidence on record or on " No evidence " . The equiry report is not be set as ' e even if a different conclusion may be possible by different person . The perusal of the enquiry proceedings goes to show that there is sufficient evidence of main witness Mr. Shinde who was actually assaulted by his subordinate watchman at the time of check in the dead hours of night . What instigated the watchman for making the assault upon his superior can be best said by the workman himself and not by the victim . Certain omissions of contradictions available in the evidence do not inaterially affect the result of the enquiry. Non - submission of the report in writing by Mr. Shinde to the Management of the Corporation does not make the incident false or unbedevable . In fact , there had been a police report in this case for which the investigation was made by the Police and the charge sheet was submitted. No doubt. a trial which took place before the Competent Court ofAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vth Court , casc No. 857 /P/92 , vide Judgment and Order dated 21-3-1997 ended in acquittal ; but it does not help the workman at all . The order of acquittal passed by the Criminal Court does not have any bearing upon the result

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी, 2006

का. आ. 996.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कन्सल्टेन्सी डेवलपमेन्ट सेन्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं०- II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 172/99- आई आर ( की यू) ] बी.एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 17th February, 2006

S.O. 996. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11 / 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Consultancy Development Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-2-2006.

[No. L-42012/ 172/99 - IR (DU) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI PresidingOfficer: R.N. RAL.

L.D. No. 11/2000 :

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Sh. Chinanan R/ o Block No. 16/2 50, Kalyanpuri , New Delhi - 110091 .

VERSUS

M/s T.S. Murli & Co. Contractor, 18-B, Pocket A, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi - 110095 .

The Consultancy Development Centre,

Indian Habitat Centre, Zone -IV, East Court, 2ndFloor, Lodhi Road, NewDelhi - 110003 .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/ 172/99 /IR (DU) Central Governmentdt . 27-01-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication.

2211

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/पद्मल्गुन 20, 1927

The point runs as under:--

"Whether the demand of Sh . Chinanan workman engaged through M/ s T.S. Murli Contractor in the establishment of Cosultancy Development Centre on the contract work ofHouse Keeping job for the period from 18-5-95 to 31-3-98 for his employment and regularization in service with Consultancy Development Centre being Principal Employer is valid, legal andjustified ? Ifyes , towhat benefit and relief is he entitled?"

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the Central Government after considering the substance of diputes in the present case opined that an Industrial exists between theabove referred employer and their workman, the above said, and in exercise of its power conferred under Section 10(1) (d) ofIndustrial Dispute Act, 1947 , fixed the following terms ofreference , while referring the same for adjudication . Theschedule is being reproduced as under:-

"Whether the demand of Sh. Chinanan Workman engaged through M/ s . T.S. Murli Contractor in the establishment of Consultancy Development Centre on the contract work of House Keeping job for the period from 18-5-95 to31-3-98 for his employment and regularization in service with Consultancy Development Centre being Principal Employer is valid, legal and justified ? If yes , to whatbenefit and relief is he entitled? "

That initially the workman being aggrieved by the callous and in action of the Management of Principal Employer, had demanded for statutory benefits, also had demandedfor their absorption with consequential benefits. Theworkman had joined the establishment on 18th May, 1995 and since then had continuously worked till 31-3-98 onwhich date, he was denied entry to the establishment. while no reason for such refusal of job was assigned to him. The workman bonafidelybelieves that he was illegally, unlawfully and unjustifiedly terminated from services, as the workman during those days started demanding his absorption along with other benefits in wages etc. It is stated that afterterminating the workmari along with another workman, P. Dharma, the Management preferred to regularize the service of the one Sh . Ram Sanehi , who was though similarly placed like the workman, was one year juniorto the present workman.

The workman after meted out with discrimination and injustices became a member of the union which is representing union in the present case , also made a demand letter disclosing all the prejudicing actions of the Management . In the demand letter dated 24-8-98 reinstatement in employment was prayed for with entire consequential benefits. However , the management who duly received the same did not respond to it and remained aloof.

2212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

That subsequent to that the workman through its union in order to raise and industrial dispute , made application under Section 10 of the Industrial DisputeAct. It is pertinent to submit here that during the course of conciliation, the management appeared with one M/s T.S. Murli & Co. Contractors , and for the first time it was disclosed that the workman's was in fact engaged by the said contractor. As no fruitful result transpired from the discussion , the concerned ALC, seized of the matter and sent the disputed to the Ministry of Labour for appropriate actions . It is pertinent to submit here that the ALC , forwarded a detailed report about the same and referred about notification dated 9-12-1976, which prohibited engagement of contract labour for the job of sweeping, cleaning and dusting in the establishment in regard to which appropriate government is Central Govt . Thus the Asstt . Labour Commissioner in its report opined that employer otherwise also could not have obtained services ofacontractor in view of the said notification. It is pertinent to mention here that the contractor was not even licensed. It is stated that volumes of service record , bills , correspondence further prima- facie proved that the contractor if any was under a act for having been retained for the name sake and he was not having any sort ofcontrol over the working of the workman and rather the workman wasunder the direct control and supervision of the principal employer.

Thatthe workman has been working on the said post diligently and to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction to his superior officer.

That the workman has been working honestly and deligently. In spite of hard work in despite to the satisfaction ofhis superior officers by the workman And despite having been no complaint against the workman , the Management has not allowed the workman to enter into the premises of the said establishment on 31-3-1998 without assigning any reason and said that the workman service were terminated and he is no more required in the said organization/ establishment and the Management illegally and unlawfully terminated the services of the workman , which is illegal , uncalled for and arbitrary and the same is also against principle ofnaturaljustice.

Thai the workman has been working regularly without any interruption or break in service but the Management showing the workman in their record on temporary basis and the workman has requested the Managemcut now and then to show the workman in records as regular and permanent employee and to provide all the benefits and wages of permanent employee to the work.man.

That despite the fact that the workman has completed 30 days each year of working the was not absorbed into he department establishment for which he is legally

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Moreover, he was being denied his rightful claim; he was notbeing given the facilities, which is being given to the other employees . The constitutional rights of above said workman is being seriously infringed .

That the Management has not followed the law of last come first go and fully knowing that the workman/ employee juniors to him in services , have been allowed to continue in service and he had been deprived of his livelihood (service) for no fault of his for the best reasons known to the Management .

That the workman has sent a notice /demand notice to the Management but the Management has least bothered to reply the said notice . The copy of the notice is attached herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Authority.

That the workman had been working in the Establishment/Management, since years altogether and he isthe only earner , the Management being a establishment which takes grants for the Central Govt . to carry out their services.

TheManagement has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the Opposite Party, M/ s. Consultancy Development Centre ( CDC ) is an autonomous body set up for development and promotion of consultancy capabilities in the country. A function of the CDC is mainly promotional and is dependent on special engineering and management scheme and expertise of members of the CDC . Mapping offurniture and cupboards by the persons provided by the contractor has nothing todo with the main activities at the CDC . Thus , no reference could be made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of the ID Act , inthe present case and the claimant's claim is liable to bc rejected.

At the inception , it is submitted that the Workman, Shri Chinanan was an employee of M/ s . T.S. Murli & Company a contractor having its office at Pocket A, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi - 110095 . ( CDC ) , Opposite Party herein . entered into an Agreement with TSM in the year 1999 for providing house -keeping services . Accordingly, two persons , viz . , Mr. P. Dharma and Chinanan were deputed by the said TSM for house-keeping services . A true copy ofthe agreement entered into between CDC and TSM is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure - 1 . In fact , the relationship between the Workman, Chinanan and M/ s . TSM isgoverned by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 and as such there was absolutely no relationship of employer and employee between CDC and Chinanan.

Therefore, since the Workman who has raised the present dispute was never employed by CDC, the reference sought to be made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , is not tenable .

It isfurther submitted that no demand whatsoever was made by the Claimant Workman to the CDC in respect 2213 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

ofthe claim now being filed. Therefore , on this sole and short ground, the claim is liable tobe rejected.

now been regularized by the management, it is marked as exhibit WW32 . Thus this witness has admitted that one of the contract labour Shri Ram Sanehi has been regularized.

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

Heard argument from the side of the Management. Theworkman was present on the date of argument but his counselwas not present. Award is being given considering the entire merits of the case .

This witness was confronted with 3 photostat copies and he admitted the genuineness and stated that it is the list of people of a categories including the employees of the ofmanagement and also of the contractors wherein the name of the present workman Shri Chinan has been mentioned in the list at sl . no . 26. So the management witness has admitted exhibit no . 34 , 35 & 36. He has also admitted Photostat copies of Identity Card issued to Shri Chinan. This witness has admitted that no seniority list of these House Keeping boys has been ever prepared by the management . Regularization is not made on the basis of seniority. There is no rule of regularization .

It was submitted from the side of the management that CDC is an autonomous body set up for development and promotion of consultancy capabilities in the country. The function of CDC are mainy promotional and is dependent on special engineering and management scheme. It is not an Industry as per the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. In a catena ofjudgment it has been repeatedly held that autonomous bodies are not Industries . Award of ID No. 112/95 old ID No. 827/83 has been annexed with the record.

Itwas further submitted that Shri Chinan was an employee ofM/s . T.S. Murli and Company. The contractor having office atPocket -A, Dilshad Garden, New Delhi . In 1995 M/ s . CDC intered into contract with M/ s . T.S. Murli and Company for providing House Keeping services on 28th June, 1984. As per this contract Mr. Chinan andP. Dharma were allowed to work in CDC . The management has filed Annexure A/ 1 contract for House Keeping , Manpower at Consultancy Development Center India Habitat Center, Lodi Road, New Delhi .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman that TSM was willing to absorb the claimant before the ALC but the claimant did not agree and subsequently M/s. TSMwas also not interested in keeping the workman/ applicant here in un -employed and it is the workman who has malafidely abandoned his job . The workman is not at all and employee of M/s . CDC and M/s . CDC have no liability towards him . Once the contract is terminated the employment of such people seizes to exist .

Fromperusal of the attendance register admitted by the management witness there is no mention of the contract labour in the attendance register. The witness has also admitted exhibit WW33 which is a list of all the employees ofthe respondents and the name of the workman has been. mentioned at sl . no. 26, so he no longer remains an employee ofthe contract or in case his name has been included with the other employees of the respondents . All payments have been made on the letter heads of the management . Identity Cards has been issued to this workman directly by the management . There is no endorsement of any contract. In the circumstances contract has been introduced to camouflage the status of this workman . House Keeping job is a work of continuous and regular nature. One of such employee has been regularized . The respondents did not keep Muster Roll and maintain seniority list . It is at the discretion to regularized a workman and to remove the other. Such executive discretion amounts tovicious discrimination . In case contract is a name lender the workman is not attached with that contract company but the workman is attached all along v.ith the respondents, the intermediary, the contract stands nowhere. The workman has been working as House Keeping Boy and no payment to this workman has been made by the contractor. He has signed attendance register of the respondents . He worked under the direct control and supervision of the respondents . The respondents decide what is to be done and how it is to be done so there is contractofservice/employment . The Hon'ble Apex Court has mentioned in a catena of cases the control test . There shouldbe direct supervision and control over the wrokman; they should be working under the premises of the management . They should be integrated to the establishment and the job should be of regular and continuous nature. The respondents cannot function in the absence of House Keeping Boys . So the day to day duty of the House Keeping Boys is a perennial nature of work. It is not the case of the respondents that this workman hasbeenengaged as an additional hand in view of fresh or increase of work . The respondents cannot function Itistobe determined whether the workman was an employee of M/s . TSM or he was an employee of M/s . CDC. The workman has filed attendance register and other documents. These are Photostat copies .MW1 has admitted 31 photostat copies filed with the record and it has been amditted further by this witness that these are the attendance register for contract labours who were sent by the contractor. The photostat copies have been marked as exhibit WW1 to WW31 and this witness has admitted that these are the copies of the attendance register relating to Shri P. Dharma and Shri Chinan and Shri Ram Sanehi . This witness has also admitted that Shri Ram Sanehi named in the attendance register was a contract labour who has 2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

smoothly without House Keeping Boys . Such necessity is from the inception of the creation of the respondents. So they should not be dependent on supply of manual labour by a contract agency. Manual Labour is not a merchandise or an article to be supplied by a contractor to the Government. Contract is simply an agreement for giving certain result . Day to day duties of manual labour consistently and for a long period cannot be a subject to be supplied by a contractor . It is subversion of Constitution and stifling the Directive Principles of State Policy.

The Directive Principles are not fundamental rights but they are very much fundamental in the governance of the country. It has been enshrined in the Constitution that state will provide employment to maximum of its citizens subject to economic conditions or availability of work. It is nowhere provided in the Constitution that a contract agency will supply Human Labours to a Government Department. Human Labour is not an article to be purchased by a contractor and subsequently supplied to a Government Department for service charges . There should not be any service charge for supply on Human Labour as it is against human dignity. So the respondents have engaged a workman directly and in order to camouflage and conceal his status they have named an intermediary.

In case a contract is absolutely sham and it has been resorted to for concealing the real status of master and servant relationship , the master and servant relationship is created by the breach committed by the responents . No registration certificate has been annexed with the record to show that the respondents are empowered to engage contract labours .

The respondents are doubtless an undertaking of the Government . They are not Research Institute , sovereign. They are carrying on systematic activities. It hasbeen held in Bangalore Water Supply that mess workers or peons of universities are industrial workmen and the universities are Industries in respect of such workmen . The respondents are Industry inview ofcriteria laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply in 1978. That decision has not been revised by any Larger Bench. So the respondents are very much an Industry. TheHouse Keeping Boy Shri Chinan is a direct employee of the respondents . He has worked for 240 days in many years as per the admission of the respondents so prior to removing him it was the duty of the respondents to pay him one month's pay inlieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . They have acted in breach of the beneficial legislation of 25 F of the ID Act , 1947 : The remedy is reinstatement of the workman without back wages from the date of his termination .

The refernce is replied thus:-

The demand of Shri Chinan workman engaged through M/ s . T.S. Murli , Contractor in the establishment ofConsultancy Development Centre on the contract work

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] House Keeping job for the period from 18-05-1995 to 31.03 . 1998 for his employment and regularization in service with Consultancy Development Centre being Principal Employer is valid, legal and justified. The management is directed to reinstate the workman from the date of his termination from services within two months from the date ofpublication of the award. In case of default the workman applicant will be entitled to get 10% interest on the entire amount accrued as wages .

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 13-02-2006 . R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 997.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकम्यूनिकेशन्स कंन्सल्टेन्टेंस इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं०- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 103/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 230/2003- आई आर ( डीयू) ] बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 17th February, 2006 S.O. 997. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103 / 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-2-2006,

[No. L-40012/230 /2003 - IR (DU)] B.M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : R.N. RAL I.D. NO . 103/2004

IN THE MATTER OF : -

Shri Sudhiar Kuamr Deepak . R/ o. A - 311 , Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP)-201011 .

Versus

The Chairman& Managing Director, Telecommunications Consultants India Limited, TCIL Bhawan , Greater Kailash-I , New Delhi-110048 .

2215 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/ फाल्गुन 20, 1927

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-40012/ 230/2003 -IR (DU) Central Government Dt. 7-6-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication.

Thepoint runs as here under:-

management on 1-4-1995 . He was working with the Company Secretary at the relevant time . In the same manner several other workers that are juniors are still working with themanagement, which is apparent from the list annexed here as Annexures - I and II , that were prepared on 23-10-1998 . The names of the juniors that were shown in the list of 23-10-1998 are available in the list prepared on 31-10-2002 annexed here as Annexure- III . The said fact is absolutely clear from the said lists. The examples of the discrimination are as under that are as per above annexures

Category "Whether the action of the management of Telecommunications Consultants India Limited in terminating the services of Shri Sudhir Kumar Deepak , Ex - office Assistant with effect from 01-01-1999 isjust, fair and legal? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date . "

Sl. Name of Qualification Posted on Date of 31-10-02 Joining

No. Employee

1-5-1996 The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In

Mauritius

DRM of

12th Pass

198. Prem Raj Sharma

office

Assistant

(as per list

23-10-1998 )

3-4-1995

Mauritius

12th Pass

DRM or

206. Rakesh Kumar

Typist

(as per

list of

23-10-1998) the claim statement it has been stated that the workmen had been continuously working with the management of TCII/O.P for three years and nine months prior to discontinuance of service/ retrenchment vide dated 31-12- 1998. The complainant joined the service with the O.P on 15-03-1995 and continuously served without any interruption as the services of complainant was continuously required by management. The workman completed more than 240 days of continuous un- interrupted service and the superior officers were absolutely satisfied with the work of complainant . During the said period no memo was ever issued for any dis- satisfactorywork of complainant including the immediate reporting office . The Provident Fund from the year 1995 till the date of retrenchment vide dated 31-12-1998 was continuously deducted as permanent worker froin the salary ofthe workman .

The above said list and discrimination has been sorted out from the list prepared on 23-10-1998 and on 31-10-2002 . The same are annexed herewith for kind perusal of this Tribunal / Court to assess the discrimination made by the management to continue their own favourite employees that are having no contacts with the senior officials . The said conduct of the senior officials has violated the rule of Last Come First Go which is apparent from the above said Annexures .

That the salary of the workman was continuously increased as regular worker time to time . However on 31-12-1998 , the workman was illegally and unlawfully detained from entering inside the office. The salary of the workman at the time unlawful discontinuance was Rs . 2544/ -permonth.

That the opposite party is an undertaking of Government of India and is bound by all the notifications ofGovernment of India . The sarne cannot be allowed to adopt pick and choose policy. Therefore the opposite party has discriminate the complainant/ workman from other workers and unlawfully retrenched the services of the workman/complainant.

That the workman was not allowed to work after 31-12-1998 and even back wages were not given. Therefore, the workman served a legal notice of demand for the back salary as well as to continue the service but the same was not allowed. The legal notice dated 19-03-1999 along with Regd. A.D, receipts are annexed as Annexure- IV to VI respectively.

That the workman has worked with the management for about four years and during the said period he was transferred from one department to other departments of the management i.e. Inland Consultancy Division to project byGroupGeneral Manager having office at E - 72 , Kalkaji , NewDelhi and later on transferred to Transmission Project Division, Devika Tower, New Delhi and worked there as Accounts cum Billing Assistant as well as Computer Operator till 31-12-1998 . However the category of the workman was some times shown as DRM and in some records shown as Accounts Assistant .

That the termination/retrenchment of workman is unlawful and the workman is entitled for back wages since 11-1-1999 till date along with arrears on 31-12-1998 for the salary ofthe month of December, 1998 with bonus etc. as well as continuance of service with all other benefits of increments etc. as per Rules . The workman is also entitled for interest @ 24 % per annum since the day when the dues were payableto workman since 1-1-1999 till decision and payment of all the dues .

That the other workmen that were junior to the complainant were retained by the management but the complainant was not allowed to continue the work by unlawful retrenchment even without complying lawful formalities to discontinue a workman . Other workers like Shri Nandulal Das was appointed on 1-4-1995 and is still continuing despite of the fact that complainant joined the 2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

That the workman has not been served with any notice of termination till date . The legal notice dated 19-3-1999 served by the workman was also not considered by the management. Hence , the termination is absolutely unlawful and without due process of law.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present dispute has been referred for adjudication to the Central Government Industiral Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. II, New Delhi by the Central Government vide their order No. L -40012/230/2003 -IR ( DU) dated 7-6-2004. Under Section 10 (1) ofthe ID Act, 1947, reference for adjudication canbe made only by the appropriate Government . It is submitted that the Central Government is not the appropriate Government in the present case . The term appropriate Governinent has been defined in Section 2 (a) . The TCIL is aGovernment company having separate and independent legal entity. Thus, it cannot be said that it is carrying out its business by or under the authrotiy of the Central Government. Therefore , sub- section ( i) of Section 2 ( a) is not applicable in its case . The appropriate Government in this case is the State Government in terms of Section 2 (a) ( ii) . Therefore , the reference dated 7-6-2004 is without authority of law and invalid .

The claimant is guilty of laches. The long and un- explained delay has seriously prejudiced the case of the defendant. He was retrenched on 31-12-1998. But, it was on 22-11-2002 that the defendant received notice from the ALC( C ) , i.e. after a lapse of almost four years . Two years have elapsed further . The defendant vehemently urges upon the Hon'ble Court to dismiss his claim on the ground of undue delay and continuing laches alone .

The Telecommunication Consultants of India Limited (TCIL) is a Government company which takes up projects within its sphere of functioning which are to be completed withinstipulated period. To execute such projects the core staff is manned by regular employees of the TCIL The additional Ancillary Staff which is required for completion ofProject is hired on contract on temporary basis. As the project nears completion the need for staff dwindles and the contract staff is discharged. This is exactly what happened in this case . The claimant was appointed on contract basis for a temporary project , his services were continued till required for the project work and had to be discharged when the project was complete and there was nowork .

It is denied that the salary of the claimant was increased as a regular workman. He had been appointed temporarily on contract basis for a project which was itself temporary and therefore he was never treated as a regular employce. His salary was increased as per requirements of minimum wagcs . It is also incrorrect and it is denied that he was detained from entering the office on 31-12-1998 . In fact, he was very much present in the office on that day

[PART II SEC. 3( ii) ] when he was discharged from service and he refused to accept the retrenchment letter along with Bankers Cheque in the presence of four witnesses.

Itisdenied that the claimant was transferred from one department to another . The I. C. Division in which he wasappointed was a part of T.P. Division and was merged with it. The claimant remained all along in T.P. Division which was a temporary project . He was taken as an Accounts Assistant for the T.P. Division and remained as such all through. He never worked as a Computer Operator ,. It istotally incorrect to say that he was ever shown in the DRM category. The DRM's (Daily Rated Mazdoor ) is an entirelydifferent category for doing manual work .

Itis denied that any Accounts Assistant junior to the claimant in the T.P. Division was retained. The seniority list of Accounts Assistants and the names of those who were to be retrenched were duly displayed on the Notice board and it clearly showed that there were two Accounts Assistants , nainely Ms. Seema Kulshrestha and Tarinder Kaur, junior to him who were also retrenched along with him on the same date . These retrenchments had become unavoidable in view of shortage of work . It is totally incorrect to say that it was unlawful retrenchment without complyingwith lawful formalities. It is vehemently asserted thatthe retrenchment was completely lawful and valid and all legal formalities prescribed by the ID Act were complied with.

Shri Nandulal Das was a DRM which , as already explained, is a different category altogether. The other two names mentioned by the claimant similarly belong to the DRM category. The DRM (Daily Rated Mazdoors) is a totally different category irrelevant and unconnected with the circumstances of the present case. It is vehemently reiterated that the principle of " last come first go" was meticulously followed .

The TCIL is a Government Company as defined in the Companies Act. It is not a department or part of the Government . The Government Rules or the Executive Circulars/Notifications do not ipso facto apply to it unless these are specifically adopted . It is denied that there was any discrimination against the claimant. His retrenchment was lawful and in accordance with the ID Act. No Accounts Assistant junior to him was retained. As already stated, T.P. Division was a temporary Project and was complete and in the process of being wound up . It was finally closed in 1999. The claimant alongwith his junior Accounts Assistants has to be discharged because of shortage of work and all legal formalities were complied with .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .

2217 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

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 as per Annexure- I Shri S.K. Deepak, Billing Assistant was senior -most in TPG Division , Kalkaji . This paper has not been either denied or admitted by the management . The workman cannot produce the original as the originals are in possession of the management . He has filed Photostat of the seniority list . As per the seniority list Shri S.K. Deepak is workman as on Sl . No. 1 , Shri Rakesh Kumar is on Sl . No.5, Shri Bishram Singh , DRM is on Sl . No. 7 , Shri Prem Lal Sharma , Office Assistant is on SI . No. 11 and Shri Parbat Singh is on Sl . No. 13 .

management is that the workman refused to receive Demand DraftNo. 213036 on December 31 , 1998 in the presence of4 witnesses of the department and the said Demand Draft was sent to the workman twice but he was not found available. It was submitted that this appears to be another design of the management . Two addresses of the workman has been mentioned . In the retrenchment notice his first address is Mr. Sudhir Kumar Deepak ,A- 311 , Surya Nagar, Distt. Ghaziabad ( U.P. ) . This address is typed . The 2nd address is A- 192 MIG Flats , Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad (U.P. ) . This address is handwritten . It indicates that the real address of the workman is address No. 1. The Demand Draft has not been sent to the workman on the typed address . The original register letters have been filed and on both the letters address is 2nd one and not the first one . If the management was keen that Demand Draft should be sent to the workman it should have been sent on both the addresses . If there are two addresses of the workman , one typed and the other handwritten the Demand Draft should be sent on both the addresses . Demand Draft by Courier has been sent on the same address .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman applicant that Shri Prem Lal Sharma , Office Assistant continued to work till 30-10-2002 in TPG Division and thereafter he was posted on 31-10-2002 in Maritius . Shri Rakesh Kumar, Typist is on SI . No. 5. He was junior to the workman . He worked up to 30-10-2002 and thereafter he was posted in Maritius from 31-10-2002 . These two workınen are junior to the workman Shri S.K. Deepak and they have been continued till now whereas the workman applicant was retrenched .

Itwas further submitted that From Annexure - A it is obvious that Shri Parbat Singh in the seniority list was on Sl . No. 13 and he was transferred to another Division . The management has retained the services of Mr. Shankar Mishra. Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Parbat Singh and Ms. Malti Kumar . Ms. Malti Kumar is on SI . No. 22, Rakesh Kumar is on Sl . No.5 and Mr. Sharıkar Mishra is on Sl. No. 8 and Mr. Parbat Singh is on Sl . No. 13. The management has retained these five workman in service on the basis of transfer whereas the present workman being on SI . No. 1 has been retrenched .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that he was not permitted entry on 31-10-1998 . There is no question of refusing Demand Draft . The management got the sign of the departmental witnesses and endorsed refused on that letter and did not send the Demand Draft on the correct address of the workman . It becomes quite obvious that the retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman but a case has been made that the Bank made every effort to give retrenchment compensation to the workman but he was not available . It has been admitted by the management witness that Shri Sudhir Kumar Deepak was appointed in 1995. He was posted as Account Assistant and he was not given appointment letter. It has been also deposed by this witness that the management has given extension to this workman . He was retrenched on 31-12-1998 . This witness has also admitted that Annexure - II belongs to their concern .

It was further submitted that the management has not followed the policy of last come first go . The workman was appointed on 15-03-1995 whereas these workinen referred to above were appointed thereafter but the juniors have been retained and the senior , the workman Shri S.K. Deepak has been retrenched . The management has not followed the policy of first come last go . It is settled law that no discretion is vested in the management to retrench a senior employee and retain the juniors to hitn .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that hewas taken in service in Telecommunication of India and it is quite mainfest from the EPF deduction slip that he was serving the Telecommunication of India Limited a Government Undertaking . His EPF slip runs into three pages and it is admitted case that he has served the Telecommunication of India Limited a Government Undertaking from three years nine months . His EPF balance during the year 1997-1998 was 43,906/- . This EPF slip has not been denied by the management .

It was further submitted that the management is adopting discriminatory policy. If the management wants to retain a junior, the senior is transferred to other Division where he would become junior and he will be retrenched taking his seniority in that Division .

It was submitted from the side of the management that he was employed in TP division which is a temporary division. Thus according to the respondents he was employed on. Project and when the work came to end he was retrenched after making payment of his retrenchment compensation . The respondents have been trying to It was further submitted from the side of the workman applicant that no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman while retrenching him . The management has filed original retrenchment letter and the case of the

514 GI /2006-30 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006 /P ALGUNA 20, 1927

conceal facts. Seniority list of DRMS ( as per proposal dated (31-10-2002 ) has been annexed with the record. This document has not been denied so it is admissible in evidence. From perusal of this seniority list it becomes quite obvious that from the date of retrenchment of this employee 40-50 fresh recruitment have been made froin 1999-2002 . Thus the plea of the management that he was engaged on project and when the Project work was over he was retrenched is not supported by any document of the management . Retrenchment should be always of the surpluses and an employee who has worked for almost four years cannot be retrenched and 50 others taken for the same nature of work . As such the respondents have acted not only in breach of Section 25F, butG, H and N also.

as the case of ID No. 109/2000 pending before I.abour Court VIII the same respondents have taken the plea that Court is not competent to adjudicate upon this matter as State Government is not Government to make a reference to that Court . Central Government Industrial Tribunal is the appropriate forum and Central Government is the appropriate Government for making references of the employees of the respondents . This plea of jurisdiction shond not be taken audaciously to circumvent judicial produre . Thus , it becomes quite manifest that the respondents have taken the plea before the 8th Labour Court that Central Government is the appropriate Government and the references made by the State Government is not competent. The same respondents here have taken the plea that this Court is not the competent Court for adjudication of such matter. State is the appropriate Government . The same respondents have taken contradictory pleas in two forums . TCIL is a Government Undertaking as has been mentioned in circular letters issued by the TCIL .

It was submitted from the side of the respondents thatthe workman was junior in view of seniority list . The workman has been termed as Billing Assistant and sometimes as Account Assistant or Office Assistant . The undertaking is still running in full swing so it cannot be said that the nature of work of Billing Assistant, Office Assistant or Account Assistant has been abolished. Seniority list should not be prepared according to the need and for the mala fide design of retrenchment . The respondents have filed circular Annexure - II . In that circular the wages ofUn - skilled worker, Semi - skilled worker, Skilled worker, Matriculate and Graduate and above of TCIL on 23-03-1995has been mentioned . So one person for the illicit purpose of retrenchment should not be sent to a division asBilling Assistant or Account Assistant and retrenched therefter as there are already senior employees working in that organization.

It was submitted from the side of the martagement that the workman was retrenched as he was Billing Assistant . The respondents have filed the criteria of the workman. In the criteria, Annexure - I the admitted paper filed criteria's have been mentioned by the management on 23-3-1995 . The first category is of un - skilled worker The 2nd isofsemi - skilled worker. The 3rd is of skilled worker, the 4th is of matriculate and the 5th criteria is of Graduate and above. As per the criteria of Telecommunications Consultants India Limited all the workmen have been divided into five categories . But the respondents have created different categories and classes of workmen just asBillingAssistant , Office Assistant , DRMs and Typistto suit their purposes . The respondents have been indulging inunfair labour practice . If they want to retrench a workınan theywill transfer him to a particular division where there are enough seniors and create hypothetical categories of workman. The respondents are a Government of India Enterprise. They are a Government Undertaking. The criterial adoptedby the respondents is not of DRM, Billing Assistant , Office Assistant and Typist but as mentioned inthe circular letter.

The categories of employees have been mentioned inAnnexure - II and the workman coines under semi -skilled worker, if not a skilled v. ker . So many semi -skilled workers have been retained in service as mentioned above as per the seniority list prepared by the management in 2002. No discretion should be vested in an Executive Authority for resorting to vicious discrimination. Discretion does not mean discrimination. In the instant case there has been gross discrimination and employces who have discharged duties for substantial periods have been retrenched on the basis of transfer to different division. This workman was engaged by TCIL and not by TP Division . He cannotbe transferred to TP Division for the sole oblique motive of retrenchment . So the pick and choose policy of respondent is not sustainbable . ey are not above law and they cannot act in violation of Section 25F, G, H & N. They have to follwo strictly first come last go principle which is based on equity.

It was submitted from the side of the respondents that this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction . The respondents are not and undertaking of Central Government . State Labour Courts have got exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters . This plea is also frivolous and vexatious

Ittranspires from Circular letter dated 06-01-1999 that first essential qualification is Graduate 2nd Division (condition of 2nd Division is relaxed in case of persons working in TCIL with additional experience of four years) . The Workman is undoubtedly a Graduate and he has worked from 05-03-1995 to 31-12-1998 . He has been retrenched by the respondenis on 31-12-1998 and they have invited applications on 06-01-1999 . He has worked for 3 years and 9 months . They have removed him deliberately in order to take in service their favourities . Many such workenrs have been reterenched and their cases are pending in Labour Courts . The respondents , it appears , are indulging inmalafide practices and the services ofthe employees are [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

attheir disposal and they are retrenching them at their will. The workman when entres into contract of employment does not sign a bond of slavery. He cannot be transferred to a temporary division while he was initially engaged in a permanent division . The list prepared in 2002 by the management is quite confusing . This list is not according to the guidelines of the criteria enumerated above. The respondents illegally even today want to retain their illegal practice ofretrenchment by preparing hypothetical seniority list for removing and retrenching some workmen. To conclude there is no criteria of Billing Assistant , Office Assistant, Typist and DRM as approved by the Government. This workman has been illegally retrenched. Retrenchment compensation has not been paid to him. The respondents have got a draft prepared and sent is to such addresses on which the workman is not available . The retrenchment letter records the typed address of the workman but 20 letter either Registered or by Courier has been sent on this address . Thewitnesses have appeared and stated that they have not signedbefore the Sr. General Manager, Shri K. C. Gupta on Annexure - I. This retrenchment letter becomes concocted. Their illegal activities are apparent from annexure-I . Shri Bishram Singh is DRM and he was engaged on 11-05-1995 . Shri Parvat Singh is also DRM and he was engaged on 01-11-1995 so Shri Bishram Singh is senior to Shri Parvat Singh but the management retrenched Shri Bishram Singh on 12-11-1998 . but retained a junior Shri Parvat Singh on the grounds of his transfer to a different division . Ajunior Shri Parvat Singh, DRM has been retained by the management . No explanation can be offered for retrenching the Sr. DRM and retaining a junior one. This is indicative of illegal and unfair labour practice the respondents have been indulging in . A thorougth probe is required by the Government in such matters .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the management that this Tribunal/Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this matter and the State Labour Court has the exclusive jurisdiction . As I have already pointed out in Labour Court VIII in the case of an employee retrenched with this Workman, the respondents have taken the plea that the Labour Court VIII has got no jurisdiction and only Central Government Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction. They have challenged the jurisdiction ofthis Tribunal /Court and of Labour Court also . In such circumstances they should usurp jurisdiction.

It was submitted vehemently from the side of the LearnedCounsel ofthe respondents that 2 a (ii ) is applicable in the matters of the workman of the respondents . The respondents have filed certain letters on Government stationery and it has been specifically mentioned that the respondents , Telecommunications Consultants India Limited is a Central Government Enterprise and it is the Undertaking ofthe Central Government and it is situated in Greater Kailash - I . The definition of appropriate Government in 2 a (j ) is quite enumerative and extensive . It is not

2219

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 11 , 2006/ फाल्गुन 20, 1927

exclusive . It does not fall within the criteria of exclusive difinition or extensive definition or even resttrictive definition. According to this definition any undertaking carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government , the Central Government would be the appropriate Government and thereafter an exhaustive list of undertakings have been mentioned. As such there are two parts of the definition . According to the first part for undertakings or industries carried on by or under the authority of Central Government, the Central Government is the appropriate Government . All the undertakings and Industries which are controlled and carried on by the Central Government and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal has exclusive jusisdiction to decide such cases . In the 2nd part of the definition instances of Companies and Undertakings have been given .

The test ofdetermining the appropriate Government hasbeen laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2001 ) 7 SCC. This is a Constitution Bench Judgement . There Lordships have held in case the undertakings or enterprises on industries are agent or instrumentalities of the State functioning under the authority ofthe Central Government, the Central Government would be the appropriate Government.

It was the duty of the respondents to establish that their activities are carried on by a particular State Government and they are controlled by a particular State Government but they have not any evidence to this effect. They are carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government so they are the instrumentalities of the Central Government and Central Government is the appropriate Government and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ofthe ID Act , 1947 is the competant Court ofjurisdiction . The law cited by the respondents are not applicable in view ofthe decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2001 ) 7 SCC. No other point was raised before me. The workman has not been paid retrenchment compensation as discussed above. The respondents have made an endeavor to show the same on the paper but the order of retrenchment has not been communicated to the workman on the address specifically provided by him . So the entire effort of the respondents is exercise in futility.

The salient features of this case are that the workinan was engaged and he has worked up to 31-12-1998 . He has served the respondents for 3 years and 9 months and he has been retrenched while a number ofjuniors to him have been retained. So the respondents have acted in breach of Section 25 F, G, H and N ofthe ID Act . There is flagrant and blantant violation of the provisions of the ID Act . 1947 which is a beneficial legislation . The workman has established to the hilt that he was retrenched without notice or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . He has further proved that juniors to him have been retained and there has been recruitment even after his retrenchment .

2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20 , 1927

So his case falls squarely under Section 25 F, G, H & N. The respondents have acted in breach of these benign provisions of the ID Act. So the workman deserves to be reinstatedwith 100% back wages from the retrenchment date i.e. 01-01-1999 with Rs . 10,000 (Ten. Thousand) as costs from respondents for their illegal order .

The reference is replied thus: ---

The action ofthe management of Telecommunications Consultants India Limited in terminating the services of Shri Sudhar Kumar Deepak , Ex . Office Assistant w.c.f. 01-01-1999 is neither just, fair nor legal . The workman applicant is entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 01-01-1999 with 100% back wages and with Rs . 10.000 (Rs . Ten Thousand) as costs for unnecessary litigation occasioned by the illegai act ofthe respondents within two months from the date of publication of the award . In case of default the workman applicant willbe entitled to get 10 % interest on the entire arrear accrued .

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 08-02-2006 R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 998.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट ओद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं०-11 . नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-2-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-40012/331/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

बी.एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th February, 2006 S.O. 998.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 78/ 2002) oftire Central Government Industrial Tribunai -cum- Labour Court . No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their weckter, which was received by the Central Government en 17-2-2

[No. L-40012/331 /2001 - IR (DU) ]

B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL ENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LAPSECOURT - II , NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : R.N. RAI

I.D. No. 78/2002

[PART II -SEC. 3(ii) ] IN THE MATTER OF : -

Sh . Surinder Kumar,

S/ o Sh . Ram Kishore Sharma .

R/ o Vill and PO Kakodiya .

Rewari

VERSUS

The Distt . Manager. Teiccommunication,

NearGovernment Hospital ,

Rewari

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -40012/331 / 2001 - IR ( DU) : Central Government dated. 01-04-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as under :

"Whether the action of management of TDM. BSNI.. Rewari in terminating the services of Sh . Surinder Kumar Sharma, Computer Operator w.e.f. 3-7-2000 is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The workman applicant has fited claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman is a young person and hails from very poor family .

That the District Manager . Telecommunications , Rewari (hereinafter called the Management ) invited the applications from the open market in the year 1997 for the postofComputerOperator on contract basis , the workman also applied for tise same .

That it is further relevant to submit here that the workmanwas appointed as Computer Operator on 1-8-1997 by the Management after conducting test and interview. That it is relevant to submit here that the workman was appointed by the Management under the full control and directions of the Management and hence there is clear relationship of master and servant between the workman and management which is clear from the terms and conditions of the agreement and same is availabie with the management .

That it is relevant to submit here that subsequently the management in order to avoid its obligations and to make artificial gap between the workman and the management, managemat appointed P.C.S. Computer Centre and then Print India ( Ltd. ) the agent between the workman and the management which is illegal in the eyes oflaw.

Thatit is relevant to submit here that the workman wasworking under the direct administrative control ofthe management and the contractor was merely an agent of the management to procure the labour from the open market which is illegal in the eyes of law as laid down hy the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Secretary HSEB Versus Suresh .

[ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 11 , 2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

That the workman approached the office of the management many times for regularization of his services but did not subinit any written representation with apprehension that the management shall terminate the service of the workman .

That it is further relevant to submit here that the duties and functions of the workman is of permanent and perennial in nature and therefore it is essential for the management to continue the services of the workman.

That the livelihood of the workman substantially and fullydependent upon the labour rendered by him to produce services for benefit of satisfaction ofthe management and therefore, in the absence of direct relationship of the presence of dubious intermediate like the contractors cannot shape the relationship of master and servants between the management and the workman.

That it is further relevant to submit to the entire satisfaction of the workman was working to the entire satisfaction ofthe management and there was no complaint from any corner . But to the great shock of the workman, the management on 3-7-2000 without issuing any show cause notice terminated the services of the workman which is illegal , unjust and against the principles of natural justice.

That the whole action of the management terminating the services of the workman and not regularizing the services of the workman is illegal and again the principles ofnatural justice and consequently the workman is entitled for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits on the following grounds:

In view of the facts stated above the claim of the workman is based on the following grounds:-- Because, the action of the management giving the work of perennial in nature which is being performedby the workman, through the contractor is illegal and arbitrary in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Statutory Versus United Labour Union which is as under :--

"70 Before parting with this judgment it has to be appreciated that engagement of contract labour has been found to be unjustified by a catena of decisions ofthis court when the work is of perennial nature nd instead of engaging regular workman, the system of contract labour is resorted to it would only to fulfilling the basis purpose of security monetary advantage to the principal employer by reducing expenditure on the work force it would obviouslybe an unfair labour practice and is also an economically short cited and unsound policy, both from the point ofview ofthe undertaking concerned and the country as a whole. Such a system was tried to be put an end by the Legislature by enacting the Act but when it is found there are certain activities of establishment where the work is not of perennial nature and then

2221 contract labour may not be abolished it would be requiredtobe regulated so that then lot ofworkman is not rendered miserable . The scope and ambit of the Act is to abolish contract labour and not be thrown out of establishment as tried to be submitted to on behalf of the management taking resort to the express language of section 10 of the Act. " Because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Panda and Others Vs. Steel Authority of India held that the contract labour who are working under contractor continuously working with long period to be absorbed by the department/ management as regular employees .

Because it is clear from the duties and functions of the workman that the workman is discharging the work of permanent and perennial nature and it is very essential for the management to continue its activities which are not possible without the workman .

Because the services of the workman have been terminated without assigning any reason and without issuing any show cause notice which is illegal , unjust and against the principles of natural justice .

Because the workman was engaged for typing work as Computer Operator which work is directly and intrinsically a part of the work of the Management .

TheManagement has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the alleged worker Shri Surinder Kumar was never appointed in the office of TDM, Rewari on the post of Computer Operator on 1-8-1997 as alleged . He was never paid any salary through the Store Keeper , the alleged worker wąs never appointed on any post in the Department of Telecom although M/ s Print Line India used to perform typing work for TDM Officer, Rewari and M/s Print Line India being paid according to market rates .

The TDM Office never paid any amount to any person except to M/s Print Line India for the typing for the typingjob of this office. The complainant was sent at times byM/s PrintLine India for typing work and the management ofM/s Print Line India was paid for that work. The TDM Office, Rewari not aware whether the complainant is in permanent or casual employment of M/ s Print Line India and also it is of no concerns to this office .

The TDM Office , Rewari never had any direct contract with the complainant nor paid any amount directly to the complainant for typing work.

That there is no post of store - keeper in this office. The complainant was never appointed in this office, hence the question of removal from the alleged post did not arisc and therefore, there was no requirement of serving him with a show cause notice . The complainant never drawn any salary from this office and never worked as Computer Operator in this office as a employee of the Department . Moreover, this office has no authority to appoint any 2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 11 , 2006/PHALGUNA 20, 1927

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] employee as per the departmental Rules . Complaint filed by Surender Kumar is wrong , illegal , malafide, baseless and had been filed with an ulterior motive and the same is liable to be dismissed .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The Management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken .

theDepartment of DOT after 1985. I do not know whether Muster Roll work without interview or regular interview conducted for the employment of regular worker /process . I do not know whether the workers were granted equal work and regularization as per the Judgment of Supreme Court in 1987-88 . I am not aware whether Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma had filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court. I do not know the letter dated 31-10-2001 issued by the ALC ( C ) , Faridabad . As per record at the time of relinquishing the work, no notice compensation were given to Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma because he was not an employee of DOT. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely. It is correct that the work was available. " Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the workman performed his duties under the direct control and supervision of the officials of the management on their Computer within the premises of the management office . The management witness Shri J.M. Gupta . MW 1/1 has no! denied the documents exhibit W 1/1 the progress diaries maintained by the management which shows the relationship between the workman and the management .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that hehadbeenperforming his duty from 1-8-1997 to 3-7-2000 continuously on the Computer of the management within the office premises . It was also submitted that 9 diaries were provided by the management to note down the daily progress of work provided by the management . These original diaries have been annexed with the record. It was further submitted that payment were made through Shri Bakhedu Yadav, General Clerk also working as Store Keeper. The case ofthe management is that the workman was never appointed in the office of TDM, Rewari on the post of Computer Operator on 1-8-1997 . The workman was sent by M/sPrint Line India for typing job of the respondent's office, he was at times sent by M/s . Print Line India for typing work and the management of M/ s. Print Line India was paid for the work. The respondents had no direct contract with the complainant nor paid any amount directly tothe complainant for typing work . He was never appointed in the respondent's office so there was no question of removing him and serving him with show cause notice.He never worked as Computer Operator in the office of the respondents as an employee of the department . That office had no authority to employ any employee as per the departmental rules . Shri J.M. Gupta had admitted in his cross examination as follows:--

The workman has filed diaries . All the diaries are of Department of Telecommunications , District Rewari and on the diaries it has been specifically printed daily work statement book 1996. 1997. These diaries establish the fact that the workman has been engaged sometimes on Computer II ,Computer 1 and he has been given designation ofComputer Operator. The numbers of books have also been typed on these diaries . These diaries establish the fact that the workman has worked on Computer . These diaries have been issued to him by Telecommunications Department , District Rewari . These diaries alone establish the fact that the workman has worked as Computer Operator for the period as has been stated in the claim . The management witness has also admitted that it is correct that the Muster Roll worker for attending defaults at line and wire in field were engaged before 1985. He has also admitted that no appointment letters to the Muster Roll workers on daily wages were given. This witness has also admitted that as per record at the time relinquishing the work no notice/compensation was given to Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma because he was not an employee of the DOT. It is correct that the work was available. This witness has also admitted that the department had not obtained registration under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as there was no requirement of registration under the said Act .

" I do not know the contents of the said documents because the other officials may have taken job from him . It is correct that there was no registration under Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. During the period I worked at Rewari . I do not know whether the departinent has got registration under the said Act for the period 1-08-1997 till 3rd July, 2000. There was no requirement of registration under the said Act being a Government Department that is DOT. It is wrong to suggest that there is requirement for registration under the said Act . I only recognize Chandra Prabha in one of the photographs . I cannot recognize the Computer shown in the photograph. It is correct that the Muster Roll worker worked for attending the faults at line and wire in field before 1985. It is correct that no appointment letters to the Muster Roll workers on daily wages was issued at that time . After 1985 no Muster Roll worker casual workers were engaged by

According to the admission of this departmental witness work was available at that time and Muster Roli workers were engaged so it was the duty of the department to maintain a Muster Roll Register . The department has acted in breach of the provisions . Seniority list of the Muster Roll workers should be maintained . This witness has also admitted diaries are manifestly of the department of the management . The department has annexed

14 2223 [ भाग II खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2006/फाल्गुन 20, 1927

भारत' कां राजपत्र: मार्च 11 ,

photocopies of the payment made to the workman on 23-7-1998 . Payment has been made on Print Line India letter head but the subsequent payments have been made by the management and it has been attested by the witness of the management . It becomes quite obvious from these photocopies filed by the management that the work of Shri B. D. Malik, Shri Hari Singh, Shri Narula, Shri Jai Pal Yadav, Shri Suresh Singh, Shri Suresh Yadav, Shri Bhakru Yadav, Shri D.P. Yadav and Shri B.P. Mina has been verified and checked by the management so it becomes quite obvious that payment has been made on the letter head of the Print Line India but the work has been attested and verified by the management.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that management witness has admitted that the management was not registered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. M/ s . Print Line India has not also filedany certificate that M/s . Print Line India was registered under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No agreement entered into between M/s. Print Line India and the respondents has been filed on the record. In the circumstances it appears that the management has introduced M/ s . Print Line India for making payment. In fact payment has been made by the management . The respondents have not filed any paper to show that payment has been made to the workers by M/s . Print Line India as there is no signature of workers on the letter head of payment . In case computer work was assigned to M/s. Print Line India there should be an agreement and an amount should be mentioned for payment to the contractor and the respondents should pay the entire emoluments of a month of the employees to M/ s. Print Line India and M/s . Print Line India will in the circumstances make payments to the workman and obtain their signature. The management has failed to establish that the workman was paid through M/s . Print Line India. The management has failed to establish that the workman worked under the control and supervision of M/ s . Print Line India . To camougfeage the status of the workman the management has filed certain photocopies of payments made to M/s . Print Line India . The fact is that no payments have been made to M/s . Print Line India by cheque . The payments made to the workman have been shown to be made by M/s, Print Line India.

affidavit of the workman . Original diaries have been filed so itis proved beyond any ray ofdoubt that the workman has worked from 01-08-1997 to 03-07-2000 so he has worked for more than 240 days at least in three years preceding the year of termination of his services. The management witness has admitted that work was available and that work was is still going on so the work is of continuous and regular nature . It has been nowhere stated by the management witness that the workman was engaged when there was additional increase of work . The work performed by the management on computer is a work of continuous nature and it has been submitted by the workman that freshers have been taken for that job . The contractor appears to be mere a name lender and in view of1999-1 - LLJ 1086 in case the workman has worked for 240 days and contract has not been proved the workman would become the employees of the management and it shall be deemed that he has been engaged by the management though without following the recruitment rules. In case there is simple engagement for 240 days without appointment letter, without following the policy ofrecruitment, Section 25 F, G and H of the ID Act, 1947 come into operation . Appointment letters have not been issued to daily rated workers . Such practice has been dis- approved by the Apex Court in 2005 IX AD ( SC) 261. For theoperation of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 irregular appointment, invalid appointment, appointment without following recruitment rules are not to be considered. The Industrial Adjudicator is only to ascertain that the work is of continuous and regular nature and the workman has worked for more than 240 days . Notice or pay in lieu of notice for one month and payment of retrenchment compensation becomes mandatory in view of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947. If the respondents act in breach of Section 25 F of the ID Act, the remedy would be reinstatement. If there is breach of any provision and some illegal act has been done then the remedy in such cases is to re -store status quo ante . Violation of Contract Labour Act or automatic absorption are not incidents for reinstatement . Reinstatement simply means re - storing status quo ante as the workman has been dis - engaged in breach of Section 25 F. The workman has been deprived of statutory right provided under Section 25 F such as payment of one months's salary and retrenchment compensation . These payments are essential in view of continuous work of the workman in case regularization is not possible.

The workman has filed letter dated 13-10-1999 written by Shri Hanuman Prasad Sharma to the Accounts Officer . Inthis letter it has been specifically admitted that Shri S.K. Sharma was engaged on Computer from 06-01-1999 . This letter also establishes the fact that the workman was working for the respondents.

It isproved by the admission of the MWW1 and the original diaries filed on record that the workman has been engaged as a Muster Roll worker and freshers have been taken for that job and that job is still continuing . In the circumstances the management has acted in violation of Section 25 F, G and H of the ID Act, 1947. The workman deserves to be reinstated with 50% back wages in the facts and circumstances of the case w.e.f. 03-07-2000 .

The respondents carry on systematic activities . They are Industry in view of the judgment of the Apex Court inBangalore Water Supply. The documents filed by the workman have not been denied by the management . Photocopies have been filed but they are supported by 2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 11 , 2006/PHAL GUNA 20 1927

PART II- Sec The reference's replied thus :----

प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग के. उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-3-2006 से छः मास कीकालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा द्योषित करती है ।

[का. रं. एम-1017/9/97- आई आर ( पीएल)

जे. पी . पनि, संयुक्त सचिन

New Delhi the 1st March, 2006

Twon or the management of TDM, BSNL , Rewari on tamen, he services of Shri Surinder Kumar Sharma, Conçut, Operator we.f. 03-07-2000 is neither justified not leger The workman applicant should be reinstated with Soho wages within two months from the publication of the avand case of default the workman will be entitled rest pea annuun on the wages which would

Award is given Accordingly.

Date 2

R.N. RAL . Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 मार्च, 2006

S.O. 999. Whereas the Central Covernment having been satisfied thus the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the previstons of sub- clause ( vi ) of the clanse ( n) of Sections the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), declared by the Notification of the Coveramen of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 3449 dated 13-9-2005 the service in Uranium Industry which is covered by item 19 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1147) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said act. for a period of six months from the 15th September, 2005

And whereas, the Cented Government is of opinion that pubhe interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

8. $99, केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 194; 4.14 की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) वनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की প্রতিদান দেশ শা 3449 दिनांक 13-9-2005 द्वारा यूरेनियम उद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम प्रादेष्टि 19 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोगों के लि दिनांक 15-9-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के विजेता घोषित किया थाः

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sun - clause ( vi ) of clause ( n ) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Dispotes Act 1947 , the Central Governament hereby declares the said industry to be a public milts service for the purposer of Lie said Act , for a period of st . months form the 15th March , 2006 .

सरकार की राग है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि कोई और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

IP. No. S- 11017/9/97 - IR ( PL) JP PATI, Jt Sey औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ২৩টি সং স্নাত (३ ) के उपखण्ड ) वे पर तुक द्वारा

Printed by the Merger Groot india Prass . Ring Road. Mavapuria Delhista Pabbshed by the Controller of Publications Delh