This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04/0007/2003-05 जयते भारत काराजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 29]

No. 291

नई दिल्ली , जुलाई 16 - जुलाई 22, 2006, शनिवार / आषाढ़ 25- आषाड़ 31 , 1928 NEW DELHI , JULY 16-JULY 22, 2006, SATURDAY /ASADHA 25-ASADHA 31 , 1928

इसभाग में भिन्न पृष्क संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह सुचक 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 अधिसूचनाएँ Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India Other than the Ministry ofDefence)

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत थानालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 12 जुलाई, 2006

का.आ. 2744, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतवृद्धारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 को अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री आर. एस. महामने , अधिवक्ता , मुंबई ( श्री वी. सी. गुप्ते के कनिष्ठ ) को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना ( के. अ. ब्यूरो ) द्वारा मुंबई में माननीय विशेष न्यायालय (टोर्टस ) में संस्थित मामला आरसी -18 ( एस) /92- बंगलौर के अभियोजन और अपील न्यायालय , पुनरीक्षण न्योपॉलय अथवा किसी अन्य न्यायालय में इससे संबंधित अथवा ओनुषंगिक अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है।

[सं. 225/2/2004- ए.वी डी-11 ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव 2057 G1/ 2006

(6285)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department ofPersonnel and Training) New Delhi, the 12th July, 2006 S.O. 2744. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government herebyappoints Shri R. S. Mhamane , Advocate , Mumbai (Junior to Shri V. C. Gupte) as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting prosecution in case RC 18 (S)/92 -BLR, instituted byDelhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) in the Hon'ble Special Court (TORTS) at Mumbai and appeals , revisions or other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, in the Appellate Court, Court of Revision , or in any other court.

[No. 225/2/2004-AVD- II] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

6286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्वविभाग ) ( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ. 2745.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 (1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झं क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ.354 ( अ ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स , 514 , डालामल टावर्स , 211 , नरीमन प्वाइंट, मुम्बई -400021 ने पोवल ग्राम के सी टी एस नं. 22 प्लॉट, 23 प्लॉट, 27 प्लॉट , 28 प्लॉट , 29 प्लॉट , 30 प्लॉट , और ग्राम चांदविली , मुम्बई, महाराष्ट्र-400076 का 11 प्लॉट पर हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स औद्योगिक पार्क नाम से एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 15-2-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/32/04- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स , मुम्बई द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स, मुम्बई द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का: नाम मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स , मुम्बई ।

( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स औद्योगिक पार्क , ग्राम पोवल

के सी टी एस नं. 22 प्लॉट , 23 प्लॉट , 27 प्लॉट , 28 प्लॉट , 29 प्लॉट, 30 प्लॉट और ग्राम चांदविली , मुम्बई, महाराष्ट-400076 का 11 प्लॉट ।

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ( iii) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल : 22570.33 वर्ग मीटर

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग समूह

क्रम अनुभाग

सं

A क 2और 3 -

विनिर्माण

बिजली गैस और पानी ख 4

ग 7 . 75 संचार सेवाएं

घ 8

89 892 डाटा प्रोसेसिंग ,

साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं ভ 8

89 894 कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप 8 89 894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

छ 8

89 895 तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं ।

: 90.69%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 9.31%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के

लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 5 यूनिटें (vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपए में ) : 30,22,97,189.93 (ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपए में ) : 26,04,12,659.00

: 29,73,76,711.00 (x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में )

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ : 31 माई , 2003 होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि 6287 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा।

10. यदि मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स , मुम्बई ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात्अंतरिती उपक्रम) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन उद्योग विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं। केंन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स , मुम्बई औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट बालिका के कालम (2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक प्रार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50% से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना।

[अधिसूचना सं. 144/2006/फा. सं. 178/38/2005- आ. क. नि.- I (खण्ड) ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DepartmentofRevenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) New Delhi , the 29th June , 2006 (INCOME-TAX)

7. मैसर्स हीरानन्दानी बिल्डर्स , मुम्बई उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ): के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना, 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा।

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स हीरामन्दानी बिल्डर्स , मुम्बई ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

S.O. 2745.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide number S.O. 193 (E ) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E ) dated the 1st day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1 st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

(i) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो।

And whereas M/ s . Hiranandani Builders , 514 , Dalamal Towers , 211 , Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 has developed an Industrial Park, namely, Hiranandani Builders Industrial Park at CTS No. 22 Pt . , 23 Pt .,27 Pt. , 28 Pt. , 29 Pt. , 30 Pt. , ofVillage Powai and 11 Pt . , of Village Chandivli , Mumbai , Maharashtra -400076;

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है। 6288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/32/04- IP & ID dated 15-2-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to thisnotification ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Hiranandani Builders , Mumbai as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii).

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of theGovernment of India has been accorded for setting up ofanindustrial park by M/s . Hiranandani Builders , Mumbai .

Hiranandani Builders 1. (i) Name ofthe Industrial : Undertaking

(ii) Proposed location : Hiranandani Builders Industrial Park, CTS No. 22 pt . , 23 pt . , 27 pt. , 28 pt. , 29 pt. , 30 pt . , ofVillage Powal and 11 pt. of Village Chandivli , Mumbai , Maharashtra-400076 .

: 22570.33 Sq . Meters (iii) Area of Industrial Park

( iv) Proposed activities :

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code NIC Code

Description Sl . Section Division Group Class No.

A 2&3

Manufacturing B 4

Electricity, Gas &Water 75

Communication Services 89

892

D 8

DataProcessing , Software Development and Computer Consultancy Services

894

Business and Management Consultancy activities

894

F 8

Architectural and Engineering and other technical Consultancy activities 89

895

Technical testing and Analysis Services.

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

90.69% (v) Percentage of allocable : area proposed for in- dustrial use

9.31%

(vi Percentage of land ear- : marked for commercial use .

5 Units

(vii) Minimum number ofin : dustrial units

30,22,97,189.93 (viii) Total investments pro- : posed (Amount in Rupees)

26,04,12,659.00 (ix) Investment on built up : space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees) .

: 29,73,76,711.00 (x) Investment on Infra- structure Development including investment on built up space for indus- trial use (Amount in Rupees)

3 Ist May, 2003 (xi) Proposed date of com- : mencement of Industrial park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility , telecom network, generation and distribution of power, air-conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2 ) of the Table given in sub - paragraph (b) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Boardor Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6289 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ षाढ़ 31, 1928

नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2006 (आयकर )

6. The taxbenefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s. Hiranandani Builders , Mumbai shall continue tooperate the Industrial Park during the period in whichthe benefits under clause ( iii) of sub- section (4) ofSection 801 A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed..

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park isdelayed.by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi) of this notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub- section 4( iii ) of Section 801 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

का.आ. 2746.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधि- सूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित कीहै;

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Hiranandani Builders, Mumbai, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions ofsuch invalidity, if

और जबकि मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय ' दिव्यश्री चेम्बर्स ' ' विंग ए , ' सं. 11 , ओशेंगनैसी रोड, बंगलौर -560025 में है , ने प्लॉट सं. 1 , सोसायटी सं. 143 , 212 , 213, 214 और 215 , ई पी आई पी औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , हूदी ग्राम , के. आर. पुरम होबली , बंगलौर में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

(1) The application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 11-4-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 18/05 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

(ii) It is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड बंगलौर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

10. In case M/s . Hiranandani Builders , Mumbai , transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park (i.e. transfer undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. the transferee undertaking ), the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

शर्तों जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बंगलौर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है।

: कोरटैक रीएल्टी प्राइवेट

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

लिमिटेड, बंगलौर

( ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

143 , 212 , 213 , 214 11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed: The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M / s . Hiranandani Builders , Mumbai, fails to comply with any of the conditions.

औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, हृदी

ग्राम, के. आर. पुरमं,

: प्लॉट सं. 1 , सोसायटी सं. और 215 , ई पी आई पी होबली , बंगलौर 12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection infuture, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल 196322.87 वर्ग मीटर क्षेत्रफल

[Notification No. 144/2006/F. No. 178/ 38 /2005 - ITA- I (Part)] DEEPAK GARG,Under Secy.

6290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

अनुभाग प्रभाग समूह

क्रम

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय है एवं उपलब्ध कराई गई हैं।

क 8

89 892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग, साफ्टवेयरविकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

ख 8

89 893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

89 894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवंअन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

घ 8

89 895

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल है , को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा।

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषणसेवाएं

: 90.08%

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( iii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 9.92%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिएनिर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

7. मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बंगलौर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं।

: 3 यूनिटें

(vii) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

: 11,519.96 लाख

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

: 7257.57 लाख

(

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिएनिर्मित स्थान पर निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

: 10483.16 लाख

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी , प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए अकेले ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो । (x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोम के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : अप्रैल, 2005

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा।

10. यदि मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी, प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर (अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम) को हस्तारित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6291

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंथे।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ -साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स कोरटैक रीएल्टी , प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना।

[अधिसूचना सं. 148/2006/फा. सं. 178/ 18/2006- आ क नि-1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 30th June, 2006

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 2746.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) ofSection 80- IA ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for Industrial Park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide Number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999 , for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and videNumber S.O.354(E) dated the 1st day ofApril , 2002, forthe period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/ s . Coretech Realty Pvt. Limited having its Registered Office at 'Divyasree Chambers ', Wing- ' A' , No.11 , O' Shangnessy Road, Bangalore - 560025 has developed an Industrial Park, at Plot No. 1 , Sy. No. 143 , 212,213,214 & 215, EPIP Industrial Area, Hoodi Village K.R. Puram Hobli , Bangalore;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No: 15/ 18/05 - IP& ID dated 11-4-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act , the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Coretech Realty Private Limited, Bangalore as an Industrial Park for the purposes ofthe said clause (iii ) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of theGovernment of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/ s. Coretech Realty Private LimitedBangalore.

1. (i) Name of the Industrial : Undertaking Coretech Realty Private Limited

Area, Hoodi Village,

K.R. Puram Hobli, (ii) Proposed location : Plot No.1 , Sy. No. 143, 212 , 213, 214 & 215, EPIP Industrial Bangalore.

(ii) Area ofIndustrial : 1,96,322.87Sq. Meters Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code NICCode

Description Sl. Section Division Group Class No.

892

DataProcessing,

Software

Development and

Computer

consultancy

services.

B 8

89 893 Business, and management consultancy activities.

C8 89 894 Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities D 8

895

Technical testing ,

andanalysis

services.

(v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use 90.08%

(vi) Percentage of ailocable area : 9.92% earmarked for commercial use.

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units : 3 Units

: 11,519.96 lakhs proposed (Amount in Rupees) (viii) Total investments 6292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

(ix) Investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount inRupees) . : 7257.57 lakhs

: 10483.16 lakhs (x) Investment on Infrastruc-

tureDevelopment including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

: April, 20-05 (xi) Proposed date of com- mencement of Industrial park.

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. Inthe case of an Industrial Park which provides built -up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility , telecom network, generation and distribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub - paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 ( E) dated the Ist April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non- resident Indian Investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/ s. Coretech Realty Private Limited , Bangalore shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii) ofsub - section ( 4) of Section 801 -A ofthe Income- tax Act , 1961 are to be availed .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park isdelayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 ( xi) of this notification, fresh approvalwill be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub- section 4 ( iii ) of Section 801 - A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and the M/s . Coretech realty Private Limited , Bangalore, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) itis for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/ s . Coretech Reatly Private Ltd. Bangalore transfers the operation and maintenance ofthe Industrial Park ( i.e. transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policyand Promotion , Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11 . The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Coretech Reatly Private Ltd. Bangalore fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park .

[Notification No. 148/2006/ F . No. 178 / 18/2006- ITA - 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 30 जून , 2006 (आयकर )

का.आ. 2747.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त अवधि के लिये का. आ. 193 ( अ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए का. आ. 354 ( अ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी डेवलपर्स (चंडीगढ़ ) लिमिटेड , शॉपिग माल कॉम्प्लेक्स , प्रथम तल , अर्जुन मार्ग डी एल एफ सिटी, फेस-1 गुडगाँव-122002 , हरियाणा स्थल सं. 22 तथा 23 , चंडीगढ़ टेक्नॉलाजी पार्क, किशनगढ़ चंडीगढ़- 160101 पर एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखंत शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 31-12-2004 के पत्र सं. 15/ 1/04- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी डेवलपर्स ( चंडीगढ़ ) लिमिटेड, चंडीगढ़ द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है।

अनुबंध

शर्ते जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी डेवलपर्स (चंडीगढ़ ) लिमिटेड ,चंडीगढ़ द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

: डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

डेवलपर्स (चंडीगढ़ )

लिमिटेड-160101 (ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

चंडीगढ़ औद्योगिक पार्क किशनगढ़ , चंडीगढ़ : स्थल सं. 22 तथा 23

8 एकड़ (iii) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल : क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग समूह

क्रम अनुभाग

सं.

1 2

367

क 3

कम्प्यूटर और

कम्प्यूटर

आधारित प्रणालियों कानिर्माण 2057 GI/2006-2

6293

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

5 6

1 2

ख 3

39 394

कार्यालय , कम्प्यूटिंग तथा एकाउंटिंग मशीनरी की मरम्मत ग

संचार सेवाएं

892

घ 8

डाटाप्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयरविकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं ड. 8

89 893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कसंलटेंसी कार्यकलाप च

89 894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

: 66%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटन योग्य क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 9.95%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 4 इकाइयाँ (vii ) औद्योगिक इकाइयों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

: 138 करोड़ रु.

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

: 95.60 करोड़ रु.

लिएनिर्मित स्थान परं निवेश ( राशि रुपयों में ) (ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के

: 126.32 करोड़ रु.

(x) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल पर निवेश सहित अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

प्रथम तीन खंड- नवम्बर , 2004 II तथा, अन्तिम- फरवरी , 2005 तीन खंड

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसरंचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा। ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत 6294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] सहित विकास अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा।

उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीतिऔर संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज, दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय है एवं उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 149/2006/फा. सं. 178/41/2005-आ क नि-1 ]

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2006. (INCOME-TAX)

7. मैसर्स डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी डेवलपर्स ( चंडीगढ़ ) लिमिटेड, चंडीगढ़ उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं।

S.O. 2747 -Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of section 80- IA of the Income - tax Act, 1961 (43 of1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी डेवलपर्स ( चंडीगढ़ ) लिमिटेड , चंडीगढ़ ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए अकेले ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

And whereas M/ s . DLF Info City Developers (Chandigarh) Limited , Shopping Mall Complex , First floor, Arjun Marg , DLF City Phase - I , Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana, has developed an Industrial park at Site No. 22 & 23 , Chandigarh Technology Park , Kishangarh , Chandigarh - 160 101 ;

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15-1-04- IP& ID dated 31-12-2004 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

(ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है।

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub - section (4) of section 80 - IA of the said Act , the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , developed and being maintained and operated byM/ s . DLF Info City Developers ( Chandigarh ) Limited , 10. यदि मैसर्स डी एल एफ इन्फो सिटी डेवलपर्स (चंडीगढ़ ) लिमिटेड, चंडीगढ़ ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Chandigarh as an Industrial Park for the purposes ofthe said clause ( iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/ s . DLF Info City Developers (Chandigarh) Limited, Chandigarh .

1. ( i) Name ofthe Industrial Undertaking

: DLF Info City Developers (Chandigarh) Limited.

(ii) Proposed location : Site No. 22 & 23 , Chandigarh Techno- logy Park, Kishangarh , Chandigarh-160 101 .

: 8 acres

(iii) Total area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code NICCode Description Sl. Section Division Group Class No.

367

A 3

Manufacture of computers and computer based systems.

394

B 3

Repair ofoffice, computing and accounting machinery.

C 7

Communication Services.

892

D 8

Data processing, software develop- ment and computer consultancy services.

893

E 8

Business and Management Consultancy activities .

894

F 8

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities .

66.%

(v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use

9.95%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for commercial use.

6295

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

: 4Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

138 crores (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: 955.60 crores (ix) Investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)..

: 126.32 crores (x) Investment on Infrastruc- ture Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount inRupees)

:First-November , three 2004 blocks

(xi) Proposeddate of com- mencement of Industrial park..

II & February , Final 2005 Three blocks

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built -up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility , telecom network , generation and distribution of power, air-conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms..

4. No single unit referred to in column (2 ) of the Table given in sub - paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals, including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1(vii) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s . DLF Info City Developers ( Chandigarh) Limited, Chandigarh shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii) of sub-section (4) of section 80-1A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 , for availing benefits under sub- section 4 ( iii ) of Section 80-1A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . DLF Info City Developers ( Chandigarh ) Limited , Chandigarh , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity , if:

(1) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 10. In case M/s . DLF Info City Developers (Chandigarh) Limited , Chandigarh , transfers the operation andmaintenance ofthe Industrial Park (i.e. transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. the trasferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimateto the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . DLF Info City Developers ( Chandigarh ) Limited , Chandigarh , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

[Notification No. 149/2006/F . No. 178 /41 /2005 - ITA - 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 30 जून , 2006

(आयकर )

का.आ. 2748. - जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354 ( अ ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , जी-3 , फिनिक्स बंद गार्डन रोड , पुणे 411 001 ने एस नं. 199 , 204 , 205, 206/1 , 209/1 विमान नगर , पुणे -411 014 में पंचशील टैक पार्क नाम से एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 13-4-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/50 /2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, पुणे द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है । 6297 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , पुणे द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: पंचशील टैक पार्क मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड का उपक्रम)

(ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: एस नं. 199, 204, 205, 206/1 ,209/1 विमान नगर , पुणे -411014

: कुल भूमि क्षेत्रफल 4949.79 वर्ग मीटर और निर्मित क्षेत्रफल 10219.21 वर्ग मीटर

( iii) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण.

श्रेणी

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

समूह

क

संचार सेवाएं

ख

89 892

डाटा प्रोसंसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं ग

893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

घ

89 894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप 8

895

ङ

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं

: 92.00%

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 8.00%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 3 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्यागिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

16.67 करोड़

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश 12.02 करोड़ (राशिरुपए में )

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में ) : 16.67 करोड़

(xi ) आद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : जून, 2005

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा। ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है, के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलीकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उतपादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकुलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय हैं एवं उपलब्ध कराई गई हैं ।

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , पुणे उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80. झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ. क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, पुणे ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि:

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है 10. यदि मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, पुणे ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतिरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल उन शतों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि. मैसर्स आश्रय प्रैमिसिज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, पुणे औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना।

[अधिसूचना सं. 150/2006/फा. सं. 178/60/2006-आ क नि- I ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2006

( INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 2748. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) ofsection 80 - IA of the income - tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial Park, by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999 , for the period begnning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354 (E ) dated the 1st day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006 ;

Andwhereas M/s . Ashray Premises Private Limited, G- 3 , Phoenix Bund Garden Road, Pune - 411001 , has developed an Industrial Park , namely , Pachshil Tech Park at S. No. 199, 204, 205, 206/1 , 209/1 , Viman Nagar , Pune - 411014;

And wherwas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 50/ 2005 - IP& ID dated 13-4-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) of section 80 - IA of the said Act , the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Ashray Premises Private Limited , Pune , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6299

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

ANNEXURE The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/s . Ashray Premises Private Limited, Pune .

1. (i) Name ofthe Industrial Undertaking (ii) Proposed location

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

: Panchshil Tech Park ( undertking ofM/ s . Ashray Premises Private Limtied) :

S.No. 199,204 , 205,206/1 , 209/1 Viman Nagar , Pune-411014

Total land area4949.79 square meters and built up area 10219.21 square meters

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code Sl . No.

Section

Division Group

892 B

893 D

894

895 E

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked forcommercial use

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees ) (ix) Investment of bilt up space for industrial use (Amount in rupees)

(x) Investment on infrastructure Development including : investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the industrial : Park

Description Class

Communication services

Data processing, software development and computer consultancy services

Business and management consultancy activities

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities

Technical testing and analysis services

92.00%

8.00%

: 3Units

16.67 crores

12.02 crores

16.67 crores

June, 2005

The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built - up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads (including approach roads ), water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility telecome network, generation and distribution ofpower, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub -paragraph (b ) of ragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty percent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrialpark. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws .

6300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5.Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii) ofthis Notification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/ s . Ashray Premises Private Limited , Pune , shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act , 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1(xi ) ofthis notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 , for availing benefits under sub- section 4(iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Ashray Premises Private Limited, Pune , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it.

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s . Ashray Premises Private Limited, Pune , transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking (i.e. , transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Ashray Premises Private Limited, Pune, fails to comply with any ofthe conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park .

[Notification No. 150/2006/F.No . 178/ 60/2006-1TA - I ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 30 जून , 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ. 2749.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ.354 ( अ ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और जबकि मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , ' दिव्यश्रीचेम्बर्स ' , ' ए ' विंग , नं. 11 ओशॉग्नैसी रोड , बंगलौर-560025 ' ने दिव्यश्री ग्रीन्स, सोसायटी नं. 12/1 , 12/2 ए और 13 / 1 ए, इन्दिरानगर - कोरामंगला रिंग रोड, डॉमलर , बंगलौर में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 11-4-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 17/05 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है ;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बंगलौर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है । 6301 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

1. (i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर ( ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: दिव्यश्री ग्रीन्स,

सोसायटी नं. 12/1 , 12/2ए और 13/ 1 ए, इन्दिरानगर-कोरामंगला रिंग रोड, 66 केवीए सब-स्टेशन ( के ई बी ) के आगे , डॉमलर , बंगलौर

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

: 63,087 वर्ग मीटर

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क

संचार सेवाएं

ख

892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं 893

ग

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

894

घ.

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप 8

89 895

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं

: 90.01%

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

9.99%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

: 3 यूनिटें

: 110.80 करोड़

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में )

(ix )

63.25 करोड़

औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश : (राशिरुपए में )

: 99.32करोड़

(

x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है ( राशि रुपए में)

: 1-4-2004

(xi ) आद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा। ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम 'खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़, दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा।

7. मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा।

9.. यह अनुमोदन वैद्य रहेगा और मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

(i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

गया है। ( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया 10. यदि मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे।

12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना, औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना।

[अधिसूचना सं. 151 /2006/फा. सं. 178/ 19/2006-आ क नि- I ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 2749. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income - Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide Number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999 , for the period begining on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide Number S.O. 354 (E ) dated the 1stday of April , 2002, for the period begining on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/s . Shyamaraju & Company (India) Private Limited, ' Divya Sree Chambers ' , ' A' Wing , No. 11 , O'Shaugnessy Road, Bangalore - 560 025 has developed an Industrial Park , at Divyasree Greens , Sy . No. 12/1 , 12 /2A and 13/ 1A, Indiranagar - Koramangala Ring Road, Domlur , Bangalore;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide . Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15 / 17/05 - IP & ID dated 11-4-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6303

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) of Section 80- IA ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Shyamaraju & Company (India) Private Limited, Bangalore , as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause(iii).

ANNEXURE The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an Industrial Park by M/s . Shyamaraju & Company (India) Private Limited, Bangalore.

1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking (ii) Proposed location

iii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Shyamaraju & Company (India) Private Limited,

Divyasree Greens , Sy. No. 12/1 , 12/2A and 13/ 1A, Indiranagar -Koramangala Ring Road, Next to 66 KVA Sub-station (KEB ), - Domlur,Bangalore.

63,087 Sq. Mtrs .

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NICCode

Section

Division Sl . No.

Group

892

893

894

895

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

(vi) Percentage ofallocable area earmarked for commercial use

(vii) Minimum number ofindustrial units (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

(ix) Investment of built up space for industrial use (Amount inRupees)

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including : investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the Industrial Park

Description Class

Communication Services DataProcessing, Software Development and Computer Consultancy Services

Business and Management Consultancy Activities Architectural and Engineering and other Technical Consultancy Activities

200 Technical Testing and Analysis Services .

90.01%-

9.99%

3Units

110.80 crores

63.25 crores

99.32crores

1-4-2004

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost.

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility telecom network , generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub - paragraph (b ) of paragrap 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non- resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) ofthis Notification, are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s . Shyamaraju & Company ( India) Private Limited, Bangalore , shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii) of sub - section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 , for availing benefits under sub - section 4( iii ) of Section 80 - IA ofthe Income Tax Act , 1961 .

9. The approvalwill be invalid and M/s . Shyamaraju & Company ( India) Private Limited, Bangalore, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i ) the application on the basis of which the approval is acccorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it,

(ii ) it is for the location ofthe Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/ s . Shyamaraju & Company ( India) Private Limited, Bangalore , transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park (i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. the transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval în case M/s. Shyamaraju & Company (India ) Private Limited, Bangalore , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park.

[Notification No. 151 /2006/F.No. 178/ 19/2006 - ITA - I ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ. 2750.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च, 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ.354 ( अ ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

6305 [भाग II-II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आकढ़ 31 , 1928

और जबकि मैसर्स सुब्रान्मन्या कस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय सं. 4/1 , टुमकूर रोड, यशवंतपुर, बंगलौर-560022 में है , ने सं. 12 , बनेरघाटा रोड, बंगलौर में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखत शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 13-4-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/55/2004- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स सुब्रामन्या कंस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्ते जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स सुब्रामन्या कंस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

: सुब्रामंन्या कंस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर (ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

सं. 12 , बनेरघटा रोड, बंगलौर

औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

(iii)

:

9.03 एकड़

प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

(iv)

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रमसं.

श्रेणी

समूह

अनुभाग

367

क

कंप्यूटरों और कंप्यूटर आधारित प्रणालियों का निर्माण

ख

892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं ग

89 893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

: 100%

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: शून्य

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 4यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्यागिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या..

: 228.35 करोड़

प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

(viii )

: 141.52 करोड़

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

203.35 करोड़

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक : उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 15-4-2004

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा। ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60 % से कम नहीं होगा। 6306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय है एवं उपलब्ध कराई गई हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 (अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी। इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है । 5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा।

7. मैसर्स सुब्रामन्या कंस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80. झ क की उप - धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं। 8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप - धारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा।

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स सुब्रामन्या कंस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

( i) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स सुब्रामन्या कंस्ट्रक्शन एण्ड डेवलपमेंट कंपनी लिमिटेड , बंगलौर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 152/2006/फा. सं. 178/36/2006- आकनि- I ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2006

INCOME- TAX

S.O. 2750.- Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) ofSection 80 - IA ofthe Income -tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified 6307

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/ षाढ़ 31 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

a scheme for Industrial Park by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion ) vide Number S.O, 193 (E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period begining on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide Number S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st day of April , 2002 , for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

Andwhereas M/ s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited , Bangalore , having registered office at No. 4/1 , Tumkur Road , Yeshwanthpur , Bangalore - 560022 , has developed an industrial Park, at No. 12, Banerghatta Road, Bangalore;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and industry letter No. 15/55/2004 - IP & ID dated 13-4-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification; : R!

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited, Bangalore , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited , Bangalore .

(i) Name ofthe Indsutrial Undertaking

Subramanya Construction and Develop- ment Company Limited.

No. 12, Banerghatta Road, Bangalore .

(ii) Proposed Location

9.03 acres

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed Activities

Nature of Indsutrial Activity with NIC Code

NIC Code

Description

Class

Division

Section

Sl . No.

Group

367

Manufacture ofcomputers and computer based systems .

892

Data Processing, software development and computer consultancy services .

893

Business and management consultancy activities .

100%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

: Nil

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

4Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

228.35 crore

viii) Total investments proposed. (Amount in Rupees)

(

141.52 crore

(ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

203.35 crore

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

15-1-2004

(xi) Proposed date of Commencement ofthe Industrial Park 6308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost. In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built - up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost .

3. Infrastructure development shall include, roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility telecom network , generation and distribution of power , air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) ofthe Table given in sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002 , shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Central tax laws .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force, shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii ) of this Notification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited , Bangalore , shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- TaxAct, 1961 are to be availed .

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002 , for availing benefits undersub -section 4 (iii ) of Section 80- IA ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited, Bangalore , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it;

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

10. In case M/ s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited, Bangalore , transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shalljointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Subramanya Construction and Development Company Limited, Bangalore , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval ofthe Central Government or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact , will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park .

[Notification No. 152/2006/F.No . 178/36/2006- ITA - I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 2751 , -जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 (1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झं क की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा 1 अप्रैल, 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के ज़रिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज़ एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय पैराडाइम में स्थल सं. 1406ए/18 , माइन्डस्पेस , लिंक रोड, मलाड ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई-400064 में है , ने भवन सं. 12 , सी टी एस नं. 1406, ए/18 एस नं. 504 , मलाड ( पश्चिम ) मुम्बई में ' पैराडाइम' नाम के एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखत शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 13-04-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/49/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

6309

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज़ एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज़ एण्ड ट्रेडिंग (इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , मुम्बई द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. (1 ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज़ एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , मुम्बई

: स्थल सं. 12 , सी टी एस ( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

सं. 1406, ए/ 18 , एस नं. 504 ए मलाड

(पश्चिम) , मुम्बई

: 63860 वर्ग मीटर (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

समूह क्रम सं

क

ख

ग

892

घ

893 8

894 चं

895

: 90.00%

(v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 10.00%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

2057 GI /2006-4

विवरण

श्रेणी

बिजली गैस और पानी

दूरसंचार सेवाएं

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं

: 20यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

: 113.27 करोड़ (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

: 85.29 करोड़ (ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में ) 6310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर : 89.84 करोड़ निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

: 17-8-2004 (xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा , टेलिकाम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय है एवं उपलब्ध कराई गई हैं ।

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनौँ जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट कोई प्राधिकरण भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा ( 1 ) ( iii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , मुम्बई ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए अकेले ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

( i ) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो । ( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम ( अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीचं निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीतिं और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स एवाकेडो प्रॉपर्टीज एण्ड ट्रेडिंग ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है । 12. केन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उ‌द्घाटन करने में आवेदक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 153/2006/फा.सं. 178/44/2006- आकनि-1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th June , 2006

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 2751- Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub- section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income - tax Act , 1961 (43 of1961 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry ( Department of Industry Policy and Promotion ) vide number S.O. 193(E) , dated the 30th March, 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354( E) dated the 1st day of April, 2002 , [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6311

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997- and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/s . Avacado Properties & Trading (India) Private Limited , Mumbai , having registered office atParadigm, S.No. 1406, A/ 18, Mindspace, Link Road, Malad (West), Mumbai -400064, has developed an Industrial Park namely, ' Paradigm ' at Building No. 12, CTS No. 1406, A/18 S.No. 504 , Malad (West) , Mumbai ;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15 /49/2005 - IP & ID dated 13-4-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of sub-section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Avacado Properties & Trading ( India) Private Limited, Mumbai , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii ) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up ofan industrial park by M/s . Avacado Properties & Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai .

: Avacado Properties & Trading (India) Private , Limited

1. (1) Name ofthe Industrial Undertaking

(ii) Proposed location : Building No. 12, CTS No. 1406, A/ 18 S. No. 504, Malad (West), Mumbai

63860 Square Meters (iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Division

Section

S. No.

Group

892

893 D

894 E

895

90.00% (v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use

10.00% (vi) Percentage ofallocable area earmarked for commercial use

20units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

113.27-crores (viii) Total investments proposed : (Amount in Rupees )

: 85.29 crores (ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

89.84, crores (x) Investment on infrastructure

Description

Class

Electricity Gas and Water

Communication services

Data Processing, software development and computer consultancy services Business and management consultancy activities

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities Technical testing and analysis services.

Development including

(Amount in Rupees) investment on built up space for industrial use

: 17-8-2004 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park which provides built- up space for industrial use, the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall notbe less than 60% of the total project cost .

6312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and severage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution of power, air- conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Intrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Asistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforsaid transfer.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) oftheTable given in sub - paragraph ( b) of paragraph 6 of S. O. 354 (Ε) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable, industrial area of an Industrial Park . For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Avacado Properties& Trading ( India) Private Limited , Mumbai , fails to comply with any of the conditions .

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in Force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii ) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park .

[Notification No. 153 /2006/F. No. 178 /44/2006- ITA- 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2006 (आयकर)

7. M/ s . Avacado Properties & Trading ( India) Private Limited, Mumbai , shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause. ( iii) of Sub - section (4) of Section 801A of the Income - tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commenceinent of the Industrial Park isdelayed by more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi) of this notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002, for availing benefits under Sub- section 4 ( iii) of Section 801 A of the Income - tax Act, 1961 .

का.आ. 2752.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का43 ) (यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193 ( अ) 'दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा , 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का. आ. 354 (अ ) , दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 के ज़रिए भारत सरकार वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Avacado Properties& Trading (India ) Private Limited , Mumbai , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or somematerial information has not been provided init.

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर -302005 में है , ने भामाशाह , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र कलादवास , जिला उदयपुर , राजस्थान-313003 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 6-10-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/87/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

10. In case M/ s . Avacado Properties & Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai , transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पा晞 गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

: मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट 1. ( 1 ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट

एंड इनवेस्टमेंट

कारपोरेशन लि. द्वारा

भामाशाह , कलादवास ,

में विकसित औद्योगिक

पार्क

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भामाशाह

कलावास, जिला उदयपुर, राजस्थान

: 258.85 एकड़ (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप:

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप

का स्वरूप

विवरण एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

समूह

अनुभाग

क्रम सं.

क

विनिर्माण 2 एंड 3

: 98.51%

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 1.49%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

:180यूनिटें (vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 608.94 लाख (viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

: शून्य

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

6313

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

(x ) अवसंरचानात्मक विकास पर 435.34 लाख निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

: 01-01-2006 (xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. अवसंरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलम तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो निर्धारणीय हैं एवं वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 3.54( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई भी एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50% से अधिक हिस्सा थारित नहीं करेंगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशय एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्नकम्पनी से है ।

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश. अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश भी शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा ( 1 ) ( vii ) में विनिर्दिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झक की उप- धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 (xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 स क की उपधारा 4 ( ⅲ ) 6314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । 9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान, स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वंय ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(i) आवेदन पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है, में गलत सूचना/ त्रुटिपूर्ण सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो । (ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु हो जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ( अर्थात् अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय , औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में शामिल शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 172/2006/फा. सं. 178/7/2006-आकनि-1 ]

दीपक गर्ग; अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 11th July, 2006

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 2752. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of Sub- section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of1961) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed andnotified a scheme for industrial park, by the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ] and Industry ( Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193( E) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the Ist day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31stday of March , 2006;

And whereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial Park, at Industrial Area Bhamshah , Kaladwas , District Udaipur , Rajasthan- 313003;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 87 /2005 - IP & ID dated 6-10-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) of Section 80- IA of the said Act , the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur, as an industrial park for the purpose of the said clause (iii) .

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up of an industrial park by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur.

1. (1) Name ofthe Industrial Undertaking

: Industrial Park at Bhamshah, Kaladwas , developed by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited.

(ii) Proposed location : Industrial Area Bhamshah ,

Kaladwas , Udaipur, Rajasthan.

258.85 acres .

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(iv) Proposed activities

NIC Code

Division

S.No.

Section

Group 2&3

98.51% (v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use

1.49% (vi ) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for commercial use

6315

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

Description

Class

Manufacturing

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non -resident Indian investment by theForeign Investment Promotion Board or ReserveBank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force.

180Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

608.94 lakhs

(viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

: Nil (ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 (vii) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause (iii ) of sub- section (4) of Section 80- IA ofthe Income- tax Act , 1961 are to be availed ..

: 435.34 lakhs

(x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use

(Amount in Rupees)

: 01-01-2006 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure development in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Parkwhich provides built - up space for industrial use , the minimum expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60 % of the total project cost .

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution of power, air - conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) oftheTable given in sub-paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S. O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws .

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park isdelayedby more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi ) ofthis notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub -section 4 ( iii) of Section 80 - IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

( 1) the application on the basis ofwhich the approval isaccorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it .

(ii) it is for the location of the Industrial Park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur transfers the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking (i.e. , the transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Intrepreneurial Assistance Unit ofthe Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 11 along a copy of the agreement executed between the transferovr and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

6316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the periód for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed. The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval ofthe Central Government or detection in future , or failure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park.

[Notification No. 172/2006/F. No. 178 /7/2006- ITA -I ] DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ. 2753.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80- झक की उप - धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का.आ. 193( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा , 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354(अ ) दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 के जज्रिए भारत सरकार वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है , ने सिंधाना, जिला झुनझुनू, राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] उल्लिखत शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 3-11-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 108 /2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80- झक की उप- धारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है । 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. द्वारा

सिंघाना, झुनझुन में विभाजित औद्योगिक पार्क

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: सिंघाना, जिला झुनझुनू, राजस्थान

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल : 18.75 एकड़ ( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम

अनुभाग

समूह सं.

2 एंड 3

( v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 100%

प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत : शून्य

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 30 यूनिटें न्यूनतम संख्या

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

: 50.58 लाख (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपए में)

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश : शून्य (राशि रुपए में)

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान : 49.38 लाख पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में ) [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 31-3-2006 2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत' के 50 % से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे औद्योगिक पार्क जो औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थल प्रदान करता है , के मामले में औद्योगिक स्थल के निर्माण कार्य की लागत सहित अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. अवसंरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज़ , दूषित जल शोधन सुविधा, टेलिकॉम नेटवर्क, विद्युत उत्पादन एवं वितरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो निर्धारणीय हैं एवं वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से उपलब्ध कराई जाती हैं । 4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का. आ. 3.54 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के बालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई भी एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिक हिस्सा धारित नहीं करेगी । इस प्रयोजनार्थ किसी इकाई का आशयः एक या एक से अधिक राज्य अथवा केन्द्रीय कर कानून के प्रयोजन के लिए किसी अलग तथा भिन्न कम्पनी से है ।

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा यथासमयः प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश भी शामिल हैं, को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

8. यदि उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने में इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( xi ) में निर्दिष्ट तिथि से एक वर्ष से ज्यादा विलम्ब होगा तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदनं अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वंय ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

2067 G1/2006-5

6317

भास्त का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

(i ) आवेदन-पत्र जिसके आधार पर केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है , में गलत सूचना/त्रुटिपूर्ण सूचना अथवा कतिपय तथ्यपरक सूचना न दी गई हो । (ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु हो जिसके लिंए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपक्रम के बीच निष्पादित करार की प्रति के साथ औद्योगिक सहायता सचिवालय, औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की. उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । ... 11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधि के दौरान किया जाना चाहिए जिसमें इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है।

12. केंन्द्र सरकार के अनुमोदन के बिना प्रोजेक्ट प्लान में किया गया कोई भी संशोधन अथवा भविष्य में पता लगना अथवा किसी ठोस तथ्य का उद्घाटन करने में आवेदंक का असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 173/2006/फा.सं. 178/8/2006- आ क नि-1 ]

दीषक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 11th July, 2006

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 2753. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of Sub-section (4) of Section 80-1A of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), has framed and notified a scheme for industrial park , by the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E) , dated the 30th March , 1999, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day ofMarch , 2002 and vide number S. O. 354(E) dated the 1st day of April , 2002, forthe period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, having 6318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial Park , at Singhana , District , Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan .

of an industrial park by M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

1. ( i) Name of the

Industrial

Undertaking

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 108/05 - IP & ID dated 3-11-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

: Industrial Park at Singhana , Jhunjhunu , developed by M/s. Rajasthan State Indus- trial Development and Investment Corporation Limited.

(ii) Proposed location : Singhana, District , Jhunjhunu , Rajasthan.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii) of sub - section (4) of Section 80 - IA of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

18.75 acres

ANNEXURE

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Theterms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Description

S. No.

Division

Section

Class

Group

2&3

Manufacturing activities

: 100%

(v) Percentage of allocable area proposed for industrial use

including cost of construction of industrial space, shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost .

Nil

(vi) Percentage of land earmarked for commercial use

30Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads ( including approach roads ) , water supply and severage , common effluent treatment facility, telecom network , generation and distribution of power, air- conditioning and such other facilities as are for common use for industrial activity which are identifiable and are provided on commercial terms .

(viii) Total investments proposed : 50.58 lakhs (Amount in Rupees )

: Nil

(ix) Investment on built up space for Industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 49.38 lakhs

(x) Investment on Infrastructure

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of theTable given in sub -paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S. O. 354 (Ε ) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fifty. per cent of the allocable industrial area of an Industrial Park. For this purpose a unit means any separate and distinct entity for the purpose of one and more State or Central tax laws .

Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 31-3-2006

(xi) Proposed date of Commencement ofthe Industrial Park

5. Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non - resident Indian investment by the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the time being in force , shall be taken separately as per the policy and procedures in force .

6. The tax benefits under the Act can be availed of only after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park.

6319

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

7. M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii) of sub-section (4) of Section 80- IA ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

8. In case the commencement ofthe Industrial Park isdelayedby more than one year from the date indicated in Para 1 (xi) ofthis notification, fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits undersub-section 4 ( iii) of Section 80- IA ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s, Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis ofwhich the approval isaccordedby Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided it.

(ii) it is for the location of the industrial park for which approval has already been accorded in the name of another undertaking .

10. In case M /s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur transfers the operation and maintenance of the industrial park (i.e. , transfers undertaking) to another undertaking (i.e. , the transferee undertaking ) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 11 along with a copy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer.

11. The conditions mentioned in this notifications as well as those included in the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002 should be adhered to during the period for which benefits under this scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s.Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur fails to comply with any ofthe conditions .

12. Any amendment of the project plan without the approval ofthe Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part ofthe applicant to, disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

[Notification No. 173/2006/F. No. 178/8 /2006- ITA- I ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy. शुद्धिपत्र 3

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2754, दिनांक 30 मार्च , 2006 की वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. 44/2006 (फा. सं. 203/34/2004 आ.क.नि. II ) के आंशिक संशोधन में वह अवधि जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 35 ( 1 ) ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है उसे दिनांक 1.4.2004 से 31-3-2007 की बजाए दिनांक 1-4-2003 से 31-3-2006 पढ़ा जाए ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 174/2006/फा. सं. 203/34/2004-आकनि-II ] रेणू जौहरी , निदेशक , (आ.क.नि. - 11) CORRIGENDUM

NewDelhi, the 11th July, 2006

S.O. 2754. In partial modification of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , Government of India, Notification No. 44/2006 dated 30th March , 2006 (F. No. 203/34/2004/ ITA. II) the period for which approval has been granted u/ s 35 (1 )( iii ) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 , should be read as 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2006 instead of 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2007.

[Notification No. 174/2006 /F. No. 203/34/2004- ITA - 11 ) ] RENU JAUHRI , Director ( ITA - II ) विद्युत मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 6 जुलाई , 2006

का.आ. 2755.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान (अप्राधिकृत अधिभूमियों की बेदखली.) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी को , जो कि सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की रैंक के समतुल्य अधिकारी हैं , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है और वह अधिकारी उक्त सारणी के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थान की बाबत अपनी अधिकारिता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके अधीन संपदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग और अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए सशक्त करती है :

सारणी

अधिकारी का नाम सरकारी स्थान का प्रवर्ग तथा अधिकारिता कीस्थानीयसीमाएं

(1)

(2).

सैक्टर-41 , सराय ख्वाजा, फरीदाबाद , हरियाणा में नेशनल हाइड्रोइलेक्ट्रिक पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के सरकारी परिसर चीफ इंजीनियर , नेशनल हाइड्रोइलेक्ट्रिक पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, फरीदाबाद , हरियाणा

[फा. सं. 11-4/2006-डीओ ( एनएचपीसी ) ]

राजेश वर्मा, निदेशक 6320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] MINISTRY OF POWER

TABLE

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2006

Designation of the Officer

Categories ofpublic premises and local limits ofjurisdiction

(1)

(2)

ChiefEngineer,

National Hydroelectric PowerCorporation Limited, Faridabad, Haryana

Public premises belonging to the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited in Sector-41 , Sarai Khwaza, Faridabad, Haryana.

[F. No. 11 /4/2006- DO (NHPC) ] RAJESH VERMA, Director S.O. 2755. -In exercise of the powers conferred by the Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column (1 ) ofthe table below, being equivalent to the rank ofGazetted Officer of the Government , to be Estate Officer for the purpose of the said Act and the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officer by or under the said Act, within the local limit ofhisjurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) ofthe said table :

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नईदिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2006

का.आ. 2756.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 कीउप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:

उक्त अनुसूची में " विश्वविद्यालय अथवा आयुर्विज्ञान संस्था " शीर्षक के अधीन " काकातीया विश्वविद्यालय , वारंगल " और उससे संबंधित प्रवष्टियों के बाद " मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता " और " संक्षेपाक्षर " शीर्षकों के अधीन क्रमशः निम्नलिखित अन्तःस्थापित किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:-

(2)

(1)

(3)

बैचलर आफ मेडिसिन एंड बैचलर आफ सर्जरी

एमबीबीएस

किंग जार्ज मेडिकल यूनिवर्सिटी, लखनऊ

ओटो-राइनो-लैरिंगोलाजी में डिप्लोमा

डी.एल.ओ.

डी.जी.ओ.

स्त्री एवं रोग विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा

डी.एम.आर..ई.

मेडिसिन रेडियोलाजी तथा इलेक्ट्रोलाजी में डिप्लोमा

आप्थलमिक मेडिसिन एवं सर्जरी में डिप्लोमा

डी.ओ.एम.एस.

क्लिनिकल पैथोलाजी में डिप्लोमा

डी.सी.पी.

आर्थोपेडिक्स में डिप्लोमा

डी. आर्थो

डी.टी.डी.

क्षयरोग में डिप्लोमा

डी.टी.सी.डी.

क्षयरोग एवं वक्ष रोगों में डिप्लोमा

जनस्वास्थ्यमें डिप्लोमा

डी.पी.एच.

संवेदचाहरण विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा

डी.ए.

बाल स्वास्थ्य में डिप्लोमा

डी.सी.एच.

एम.डी. (जनरल मेडिसिन )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( जनरल मेडिसिन )

एम.एस. ( सर्जरी )

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी (शल्य क्रिया )

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान )

एम.एस. ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान )

एम.एस. ( आर्थो)

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी ( हड्डी रोग विज्ञान )

एम.एस. ( नेत्र विज्ञान )

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र विज्ञान )

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी ( स्त्री एवं प्रसूति रोग विज्ञान) -

एम.एस. (स्त्री एवं प्रसूति रोग विज्ञान )

एम.डी. ( स्त्री एवं प्रसूति रोग विज्ञान ) डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( स्त्री एवं प्रसूति रोग विज्ञान )

एम.एस. ( इएनटी)

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी (आटो- राइनो-लैरिंगोलाज़ी )

एम.डी. ( शरीर क्रिया विज्ञान )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( शरीर क्रिया विज्ञान)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( भेषज विज्ञान )

एम.डी. (फार्मा. )

एम.डी. ( पैथोल्लाजी)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( पैथालाजी ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6321

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

(1)

(2)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( क्षयरोग )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( क्षय एवं वक्ष रोग )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( क्षय एवं श्वसनी रोग )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( सामाजिक एवं निवारक चिकित्सा )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( विकिरण विज्ञान )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( संवेदनाहरण विज्ञान)

मास्टर आफ सर्जरी ( प्लास्टिक सर्जरी )

मजिस्ट्रार चिरूरनगिए ( प्लास्टिक सर्जरी )

डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( बाल रोग चिकित्सा )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (मनश्चिकित्ता)

मजिस्ट्रार चिरूरगिएं ( तंत्रिका शल्यक्रिया)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( हृदय रोग विज्ञान )

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (विकिरण थिरेपी)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( तंत्रिका विज्ञान )

(3)

एम.डी. (क्षयरोग)

एम.डी. ( क्षय एवं वक्ष रोग )

एम.डी. ( क्षय एवं श्वसनी रोग)

एम.डी. (एस.पी.एम. )

एम.डी. ( विकिरण विज्ञान )

एम.डी. (संवेदनाहरण विज्ञान)

एम.एस. (प्लास्टिक सर्जरी )

एम.सी.एच. (प्लास्टिक सर्जरी )

एम.डी. (बाल रोग चिकित्सा)

एम.डी. ( मनश्चिकित्सा)

एम.सी.एच. ( तंत्रिका शल्य क्रिया )

डी.एम. ( हृदय रोग विज्ञान)

एम.डी. (विकिरण थिरेपी )

डी.एम. (तंत्रिका)

[सं. वी- 11015-2/2005 - एमई ( पी ) ] शरत कुमार मिश्रा, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and FamilyWelfare)

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2006

S.O. 2756. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consultation with the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

In the said Schedule , after "Kakatiya University, Warangal " under the heading ' University or Medical Institution' and the entries relating thereto under the headings "Recognized Medical Qualifications " and " Abbreviation" , the following shall be respectively be inserted namely :-

Abbreviation for registration

Recognized medical qualification

University or Medical Institution

(2)

(1)

Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery

KingGeorge'sMedical University, Lucknow Diploma in Oto- Rhino- Laryngology

Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Diploma in Medicine Radiology and Electrology

Diploma in Ophthalmic Medicine and Surgery

Diploma in Clinical Pathology

Diploma in Orthopaedics

Diploma inTuberculosis Diseases

Diploma in Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases

Diploma in Public Health

Diploma in Anaesthesiology

Diploma inChild Health

Doctor ofMedicine (General Medicine)

Master of Surgery ( Surgery)

Master of Surgery (Anatomy)

Master of Surgery ( Orthopaedics)

Master of Surgery ( Ophthalmology)

Master of Surgery ( Obstetrics and Gynaecology)

(3)

MBBS

D.L.O.

D.G.O.

D.M.R.E.

D.O.M.S.

D.C.P.

D. Ortho

D.T.D.

D.T.C.D.

D.P.H.

D.A.

D.C.H.

M.D. (General Medicine)

M.S. (Surgery)

M.S.(Anatomy)

M.S.(Ortho)

M.S. (Ophth)

M.S. (Obst. & Gynae)

M.D. (Obst. & Gynae)

Doctor ofMedicine (Obstetrics and Gynaecology)

6322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006 /ASADHA 31 , 1928

(1)

(2)

Master of Surgery (Oto- Rhino-Laryngology)

Doctor ofMedicine (Physiology)

Doctor of Medicine (Pharmacology)

Doctor of Medicine ( Pathology)

Doctor ofMedicine (Tuberculosis)

Doctor of Medicine (TB & Chest Diseases)

Doctor ofMedicine (TB & Resp . Diseases)

Doctor ofMedicine (Social and Preventive Medicine)

Doctor ofMedicine ( Radiology)

Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology)

Master of Surgery (Plastic Surgery)

Magistrar Chirurgiae ( Plastic Surgery)

Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics)

Doctor ofMedicine (Phychiatry)

Magistrar Chirurgiae (Neuro Surgery)

Doctor ofMedicine ( Cardiology)

Doctor ofMedicine (Radio- Therapy)

Doctor ofMedicine (Neurology)

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2757 - 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 पश्चिम मध्य रेलवे , जबलपुर के मुख्यालय , 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 ) MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD)

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2006

S. O. 2757. Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) , in pursuance ofsub- rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 ( use for the official purposes ofthe Union) hereby, notify the Headquarter of West-Central Railway, Jabalpur, where more than 80% Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[No.Hindi -2006/OL - 1 / 12/ 1 ] KRISHNA SHARMA, Jt . Director(OL)

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

M.S. (ENT)

M.D.(Phy.)

M.D. (Pharma)

M.D. (Path)

M.D. (T.B. )

M.D. (TB & Chest Dise .) M.D. (TB & Resp . Diseases) M.D. ( S.P.M. )

M.D. (Radio .)

M.D. (Anes .)

M.S. ( Pl . Surg.)

M. Ch. (Plastic Surgery) M.D. (Paed.)

M.D. (Psy.)

M.Ch. (Neuro Surg.)

D.M. (Cardio)

M.D. (Rad . Therapy)

D.M. (Neuro)

[No. V- 11015/2 /2005 - ME(P)] S. K. MISHRA , Under Secy.

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2758 - भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम , 1994 ( 1994 की संख्या 55 ) की धारा 3 में निहित शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार ने यह निर्णय लिया है कि इंडियन एयरलाइन्स के अध्यक्ष और प्रबंध निदेशक श्री विश्वपति त्रिवेदी , आई एएस ( मप्र-77 ) इस आदेश की जारी करने की तारीख से भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक सरकारी सदस्य बने नहीं रहेंगे।

[सं. एवी-24015/005/94-वीबी] सर्वेश कुमार आर्य , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION New Delhi , the 5th July, 2006

S. O. 2758. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (No. 55 of 1994) the Central Government has decided that Shri Vishwapati Trivedi , 1AS ( MP : 77) , Chairman and Managing Director of Indian Airlines will cease to be a part -time Government Member on the Board of Airports Authority of India, from the date of issue of this order.

[No. AV-24015/005/94-VB) SARWESH KUMAR ARYA, Under Secy.

6323 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2759.- 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 रहेमा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ईसाई डिजीट्रेमानिक्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , ए-1 , ईसाई इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , 62: 3 , बेगुर होबली रोड , बोम्मनहल्ली , बंगलौर-560068 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सी टी एस-216 " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित (बहुभार खेल तोल तुला प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ईसाई कंक्रीट वे ब्रिज " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2003/336 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकासित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल (दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक बहुभार सेल आधारित तुला चौकी प्रकार का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित 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 बन्द करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्दी कीजाएगी ।

GL और , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त धारा की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के इस अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 कि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मात्र के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक्र कीरेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल (एन ) की संख्या सहित 5 टम से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता बाले हैं और " ई " मान 1×10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जिसमें के धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है।

[फा. यू एम-21 ( 282 ) /2001 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णाभूति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6324

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2759.-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 accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self- indicating , non -automatic (Multi load cell type weight bridge) weighing instrument with digital indication of ' CTS - 216 ' series ofmedium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " ESSAE Concrete Weigh Bridge" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Essae Digitraonics Private Limited , Al , Essae Industrial Estate , 62/3 , Begur Hobli Road , Bommanahalli , Bangalore -560 068 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2003/336 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a multi load cell based weigh bridge type weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 40 tonnes and minimum capacity of 100kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The vacuum florescent display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

GL Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of the Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonnes with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 1kg 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 ( 282)/2001 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6325 300 भारत का सत्रापक जुलाई 22, 2006/ अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

2005 नई दिशाली, 19 जून, 2006

काका सा .12360 केलीय सस्कृत का विहित अधिकारी द्वारा नौहरलैण्डन्स मीटिशन्सटीयूट (एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्डस द्वारा , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पकवाद यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और मार्च मोमक अधिनियम, 1976' ( 1976 की 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मैनिक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रथीम की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखोगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

तर अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , बसत अधिनियम की धारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे फरल्युक और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शषितयों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिमको डेन्सी कं. लि. नं. 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो - कू, टोक्यों 113-0034, जापान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेप्युयी इलैक्ट्रॉमिक्स 89/1 - ए, भवानी पेठ, नियर घसेष्टी पूल, पुणे -411 042 , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के विक्री किए गए सी टी "टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मौडल का, जिसके ब्रांड काका नामनाम " शिनको डेन्शी है औरऔर जिसेजिसे अनुमोदन विह आई एन डी/13/06/240 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुतोषण प्रमाण-पव अधी और प्रकाशित करती है । श्रृंखला के

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के) तोलम उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता ≤ 600 कैरट है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान स्पेशल यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग-1 ) के लिए एन ≤ 60,000 के लिए ई ≥ 0.01 कैरट हैं । इसमें एक अधियतुलन युक्ति है ।है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है ।। उपकरण 6 वोल्ट 9 वोल्ट डी. सी. , विद्युत प्रदाय पर, कार्य करता

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री यथार्थता, डिजाइन, संर्किट डायग्राम, कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शतों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (37)/2006]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2057 G1/2006-6 6326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART #SEC. (ii)]

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2760. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands , 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 ofsustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non-automatic weighing instrument (table top type ) with digital indication of series ' CT ' with brand name ' Shinko Denshi ' and manufactured by M/ s . Shinko Denshi , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo- ku , Tokyo 113--0034 , Japan and sold in India without any alternation or additions by M/ s Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1 -A, Bhawani Peth, Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune- 411 042, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /06/240 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type) with a maximum capacity ≤ 600 ct in respect of verification scale interval n≤60000 for e≥ 0.01 ct for special ' accuracy class- I' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 6V-9V DC 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.

[ F. No. WM-21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6327 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2761.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्डस् मीटिहम्सटीयूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्डस् द्वारा , अनुमोदन प्रभाण - पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह सभाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृत्ति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाटं और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्शी कं. लि. नं 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो- कू टोक्यो 113-0034 , जापान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेन्सुयी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स , 89/1- ए, भवानी पेठ, नियर बसेटी पूल , पुणे-411 042 , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " सी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण (टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' शिनको डेन्सी' है और जिसे अनुमोदनं चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/ 06 /241 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता ≤120 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमीन अन्तराल का मान उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -11 ) के लिए एन ≤ 12,000 के लिए ई ≥ 0.01 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 6 वोल्ट -9 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टॉम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , 'सर्किट डायग्राम, कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया जाएगा ।।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 37) /2006]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 19th June, 2006

S.O. 2761. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ), Netherlands , 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 ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non-automatic weighing instrument ( table top type) with digital indication of series ' CT' with brand name ' Shinko Denshi ' and manufactured by M/ s Shinko Denshi , No. 3-9-1 1 Yushima Bunkyo -ku , Tokyo 113-0034 , Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1 -A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool, Рине-411 042 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/06/241;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity ≤ 120 g in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 12,000 for e≥ 0.01 g for medium accuracy ' accuracy class - 11 ' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 6V-9V DC power supply.

Inaddition 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 , in terms of its material , accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle etc.

[F. No. WM-21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology CHE

6329

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 22 , 2006 आषाढ़ 31, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (1)]

नई दिल्ली , 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2762. केद्रीय सरकारका विहित अधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्डस मीटिइन्सटीयूड एस एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्डस द्वारा , अकुसोषस प्रमाण - पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृतिदेखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में।में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रश्चन करता

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उप-उप- धारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और वारा 36 की उप- कारा (7 ) और (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्सी कक. लि. नं : 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनेकयो – के टोक्यो 113-0034 , आपान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेत्रमुकी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स 89 /4 -प भवानी फेल, गियर बसेकी पूल, पुणे -411,042 , सहाराष्ट्र, ग्रुप विश्व किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " एच में (आरके अंकसूचन सहित ( हेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' शिनको डेन्सी ' है और किसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/13406/242 सानुकिय किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

allusti the fol उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेष प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचलित (टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन सत्रकसम है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 17 कि.ग्रा. < अधिकतम ≤ 62 कि.ग्रा. या 85,000 कौरट अधिकतम 3,10,000 कौरठ है । सत्यापन मापपान अन्तराल का माल उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -2 ) के लिए एन ≤ 62,000 के लिए ई≥ई ≥ 1 ग्रा. या ई 5 फीट है । इसमें एक आधेपतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है ।

स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए मीलबर भी किया जायेगा और माडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम, कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 37 )/2006]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6330

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2762. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ), Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non -automatic weighing instrument ( table top type) with digital indication of series " HJ ' ( R) - K ' with brand name ' Shinko ' Denshi ' and manufactured by M/ s Shinko Denshi , Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo-ku , Tokyo 113--0034 , Japan and sold in India without any alternation or additions by M/ s Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1A, Bhawani Peth, Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune - 411 042 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approvalmark IND/ 13/06/242;

मत्राला

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type) with a maximum capacity 17kg ≤ Max ≤ 62 kg or 85000ct Max ≤ 310000 ct in respect of verification scale interval n 62,000 for e≥ 1gore 5ct for high accuracy class - II ' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The instrument operates on 12 V DC power supply. The model is having facility of internal calibration mass .

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.

[F. No. WM-21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6331 [भाग - खण्ड (H) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: बुलाई 22, 2006/ आपाड़ 31; 1928

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून, 2006

का. आ. 2763.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्डस मीटिइन्सटीयूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्ड द्वारा , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदल ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेंगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्तसेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अत्तः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उप-धारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा (8) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्शी कं. लि. नं. 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो- कू टोक्यो 113-0034, जापान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेन्सुयी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स , 89/ 1 - ए, भवानी पेठ , नियर मसेटी पूल , पुणे 411 042 , महाराष्ट्र , द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " एच जे ( आर ) सी ई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' शिनको डेन्शी ' है और जिसे अनुमोदन विह आई एन डी/ 13/06/243 सम्मुद्देशित किया महा है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक ट्यूनिंग फोर्क तकनीक आधारित अस्वचलित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1.2 कि.ग्रा.- 15 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) के लिए एन ≤ 42,000 के लिए ई ≥ 0.1 ग्रा. या अधिकतम क्षमता 6000 कैरट 75,000 कैरट के लिए सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल का मान एन ≤ 31,000 के लिए ई 1 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक भारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट डी. सी. ब्रिद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है ।

स्टॉम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सौलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और माडल को उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया जाएगा ।

[फाक एम-21 ( 37) /2006 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6332

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi, the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2763. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval) of Models Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non-automatic weighing instrument (table top type) with digital indication of series ' HJ ' (R) -CE ' with brand name ' Shinko Denshi ' and manufacturedby M/ s Shinko Denshi , Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo -ku , Tokyo 113-0034 , Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additionsby M/s Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool, Rune-411 042, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /06/243 ;

The said model is a Tuning- Fork technology based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type) with a maximum capacity 1.2 kg - 15 kg in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 42000 for e≥ 0.1g or with a maximum capacity 6000ct-75000ct in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 31000 for e = 1 ct, for high accuracy ' accuracy class - II ' . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 12 V DC power supply. The model is having facility of internal calibration mass .

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.

[ F. No. WM -21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6333 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2764.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्डस मीटिइन्सटीयूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्ड द्वारा , अनुमोदन प्रमाण -पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 कां 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्शी कं. लि. नं. 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो- कू, टोक्यो 113-0034 , जापान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेन्सुयी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स , 89/1 -ए, भवानी पेठ, नियर घसेटी पूल , पुणे -411 042 , महाराष्ट्र , द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " एच जे ( आर ) ..सी ई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' शिनको डेन्शी' है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/06/244 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक ट्यूनिंग फोर्क तकनीक आधारित अस्वचलित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 6200 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान स्पेशल यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) के लिए एन ≤ 62,000 के लिए ई≥ 0.1 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 37 )/2006]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2057G1 /2006-7 6334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006 /ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2764. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non- automatic weighing instrument (table top type) with digital indication of series ' HJ ' (R) - .. CE' with brand name ' Shinko Denshi ' and manufactured by M/s Shinko Denshi Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo - ku, Tokyo 113-0034, Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/ s . Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune 411 042 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/06/244;

The said model is a Tuning-Fork technology based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type) with a maximum capacity 6200 g in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 62000 for e≥ 0.1g for Special accuracy 'accuracy class - I ' . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 12 V DC power supply. The model is having facility of internal calibration mass.

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.

[ F. No. WM- 21 (37 )/2006 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6335. [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928 ,

नई दिल्ली , 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2765. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्ड्स मीटिइन्सटीयूट (एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्ड्स द्वारा , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उपधारा (3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्शी कं. लि. , नं. 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो- कू, टोक्यो 113-0034, आपान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेन्सुयी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स , 89/1 - ए, भवानी पेठ , नियर घसेटी पूल , पुणे -411042 , महाराष्ट्र , द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवध 'न के बिक्री किए गए " ए जे ( एच ) , ए जे " ( कैरट के लिए ) , " एस जे, या एस जे पी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' शिलको डेन्शी' है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 /06/245 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक ट्यूनिंग फोर्क तकनीक आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 ग्रा. - अधिकतम ≤ 6200 ग्रा. या 2500 कैरट अधिकतम ≤ 31,000 कैरट है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान स्पेशल यथार्थताः वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग-1 ) के लिए एन≤ 82,000 के लिए ई≥ 0.1 ग्रा. या ई≥ 0.1 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया जाएगा !

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (37 )/2006 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2765.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (table top type) with digital indication of series ' AJ ( H ), AJ ' for Carat (CT) , ' SJ or SJP ' with brand name ' Shinko Denshi and manufactured by M/ s Shinko Denshi Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo - ku , Tokyo 113-0034, Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s . Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune -411 042, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/13/06/245;

The said model is a Tuning -Fork technology based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type) with a maximum capacity 500g ≤ Max ≤ 6200g or 2500 ct Max ≤ 31000 ct in respect of verification scale interval n 82000 for e≥ 0.01g or e≥ 0.1ct, for special accuracy ' accuracy class - I ' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The instrument operates on 12V DC power supply. The model is having facility of internal calibration mass .

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.

[F. No. WM- 21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6337 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आपाड़ 31, 1928

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2766.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्ड्स मीटिइन्सटीयूट (एम एम आई) , नीदरलैण्ड्स द्वाच , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मामक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उपधारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्शी कं. लि. , नं.: 3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो - कू, टोक्यो 113-0034 , जापान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेन्सुयी इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स , 89/ 1 -ए, भवानी पेठ, नियर घसेटी पूल , पुणे -411042 , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " एजे ( एच ) , ए जे " " ( कैरत के लिए ) " एस जे , या एस जे पी " श्रृंखला के अंसक सूचमः सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम' शिमको डेक्शी' है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन ड़ी/13/06/246 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक ट्यूनिंग फोर्क तकनीक आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. ≤ अधिकतम ≤ 12 कि. ग्रा. या 250 कैस्ट अधिकतम ≤ 60,000 कैरट है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का माम उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) के लिए एन ≤ 42,000 के लिए ई≥ 0.01 ग्रा. या ई≥ 0.1 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (37)/2006]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2766.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non- automatic weighing instrument (table top type ) with digital indication of series ' AJ ( H ) , AJ ' for carat (CT) ' SJ or SJP ' with brand name ' Shinko Denshi' and manufactured by M/ s Shinko Denshi Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo - ku , Tokyo 113-0034 , Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additionsby M/ s Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune-411 042, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/13/06/246;

The said model is a Tuning -Fork technology based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type) with a maximum capacity 50g ≤ Max ≤ 12 kg or 250 ct Max ≤ 60,000 ct. in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 42,000 for e≥ 0.1g.ore≥ 0.1 ct , for high accuracy ' accuracy class - 11 ' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 12 V DC power supply. The model is having facility of internal calibration mass .

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.

[F. No. WM -21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6339 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली,19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2767. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्ड मीटिइन्सटीयूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्ड द्वारद्वारा, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथ्या. बाट और माय मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

......अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उपधारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स शिनको डेन्सी कं. लि. नं. 3-9-11 यूशिमा बसको कू. टोक्यो 113-0034, जापात्र द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेन्सुयी इलैक्ट्रानिक्स , 89/1 -ए, भवानी पेठ, नियर घसेटी पूल , पूर्ण -411 042 , महाराष्ट्र, द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " डी जे ( एच ) " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित , तौलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शिनको डेन्शी " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 / 2006/247 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है।

उक्त मॉडल एक ट्यूनिंग फोर्क तकनीक आधारित अस्वचलित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के) तोलन उपकरण है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 ग्रा. अधिकतम ≤ 6000 ग्रा. या 750 कैरट अधिकतम ≤ 30,000 कैरट है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) के लिए एन ≤ 30,000 के लिए ई≥ 0.01 ग्रा. या ई ≥ 0.05 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर पर कार्य करता है। उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकिन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और माडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया जाएगा।

[फ एम-21 ( 37) /2006]

पी. ए. कृष्ण्णाम निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2767.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of series ' DJ (H) ' with brand name "Shinko Denshi " and manufactured by M/s. Shinko Denshi Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo -ku , Tokyo 113-0034, Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/ s . Sansui Electronics , No. 89/ 1 -A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune -411 042, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/ 2006/247;

کو The said model is a Tuning Fork technology based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity 150g ≤ Max ≤ 6000g or 750ct ≤ Max ≤ 30,000ct in respect of verification scale interval n 30000 for e≥ 0.01g or e≥ 0.05ct , for high accuracy ' accuracy class - II ' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 12V DC power supply. The model is having facility of internal calibration mass .

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.

[F. No. WM- 21 (37)/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6341 [भाग -खाण्ड 3( i) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2768, केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नीदरलैण्डस मीटिइन्सटीयूट (एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैण्डस द्वारा , अनुमोदन प्रभाण -पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मामक 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 , कैन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की उपधारा ( 3 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स शिनको डेन्शी कं. लि. नं.:3-9-11 यूशिमा बनकयो-कू टोक्यो 113-0034 , जापान द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स सेम्भुथी इलैक्ट्रानिक्स , 89/1 ए, भवानी पेठ , नियर घसेटी पूल , पुणे -411042 , महाराष्ट्र , द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए " एं एफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का,. जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " शिनको डेन्शी " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 /2006/248 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक ट्यूनिंग फोर्क तकनीक आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 120 ग्रा. - अधिकतम ≤ 220 ≤ 600 कैरट अधिकतम ≤ 11,00 कैरट है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान स्पेशल यथार्थता वर्ग (यथार्थता वर्ग-1 ) के लिए एन ≤ 2,20,000 के लिए ई मि. ग्रा. या ई≥ 0.01 कैरट है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आश्रेयतुलन प्रभाव है । उपकरण 9 वोल्ट डी. सी. विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में द्रव्यमान के आन्तरिक कैलिब्रेशन की सुविधा है;

स्टाम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धान्त आदि की शर्तों पर कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया आएगा।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (37 ) /2006] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2057 G/2006-8 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2006

S.O. 2768. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMF ) , Netherlands , satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of series ' AF ' with brand name "Shinko Denshi " and manufacturedby M/ s . Shinko Denshi Co. Ltd. , No. 3-9-11 Yushima Bunkyo - ku , Tokyo 113-0034 , Japan and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s . Sansui Electronics , No. 89 / 1 - A, Bhawani Peth , Near Ghaseti Pool , Pune -411 042 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 13 /2006 /248;

The said Model is a Tuning_Fork technology based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity 120g ≤ Max ≤ 220g or 600ct ≤ Max ≤ 11,00ct in respect of verification scale interval n <2,20,000 for e≥ 1mg or e≥ 0.01ct, for special accuracy ' accuracy class - 1 ' . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The instrument operates on 9V DC power supply. The Model is having facility of internal calibration mass .

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.

[F. No. WM -21 ( 37) /2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6343 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2769.- 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 स्कैलटेक इंस्टूमेंट्स एण्ड सर्विसेस प्रा. लि. , # 246, अंगप्पा नाइचेन स्ट्रीट, पहली मंजिल , इराबालु स्ट्रीट के सामने , पारिस , चेन्नई-600001 , तमिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " मार्क " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्कैलटेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2006/ 13 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त माडल एक इलैक्ट्रो मेगनेटिक बल कम्पेनसेसन सिद्धान्त आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) है इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 800 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि. ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 10 मि. 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।

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 सेजिससे उक्त अनुमोदित माडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्राम 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" मान के लिए 5000 से 50000 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 है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (267)/2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] S.O. 2769.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication belonging to high accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) of ' MARK ' series with brand name " BELL" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Scaletech Instruments & Services Pvt . Ltd. , # 246, Angappa Naicken Street, 1st Floor, Facing Errabalu Street , Parrys , Chennai -600 001 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /2006/ 13 ;

The said model is an electro - magnetic force compensation principle based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) . Its maximum capacity is 800g and minimum capacity 200mg. The value of verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Vaccum Florescent Display (VFD) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50 mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or5x10k , 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 (267)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6345 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

का. आ. 2770,- 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 भारत पम्प , बी -61 , जी आई डी सी इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स इस्टेट, सेक्टर-25 , गांधीनगर-382044 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित इलैक्ट्रोनिक डिस्पेसिंग पम्प में अंकक सूचक सहित मकैनिकल डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के कंवर्सन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्मार्ट पम्प " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2006/06 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल अंकक प्रदर्श सहित डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के बीच कंवर्सन किट के लिए कंवटिंग मकैनिकल एनालॉग डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प का है, जिसमें पाजिटिव डिस्पलेसमेंट मीटर लगा है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 99.99 लीटर और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 मि.ली. है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द किया जाएगा और मॉडल को इसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , वर्किंग सिद्धान्त आदि के रूप में कोई परिवर्तन न किया जा सके।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (74 )/2000 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 6346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 19th June, 2006

S.O. 2770.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of Model of Conversion of Mechanical Dispensing Pump into Electronic Dispensing Pumpdigital indication (herein referred to as said Model) , with brand name " SMART PUMP " , manufactured by M/s . Bharat Pumps , B- 61 , GIDC, Electronic Estate , Sector- 25 , Gandhi Nagar- 382 044, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2006/06;

The said Model is a conversion kit for converting mechanical analogue dispensing pump into dispensing pump with digital display having a positive displacement meter. Its maximum Capacity is 99.99 litre and smallest division is 10 ml . The instruments operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

[F. No. WM- 21 (74 )/2000 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6347 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2771 , -केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है । किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वमेन्दु , ए-54 , जी आई डी सी इलैक्ट्रोनिक इस्टेट, गांधी नगर -382028 , द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -111 ) वाले " वी-5000 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन के लिए कंवर्जन किट ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वमेन्दु" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 /61 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त माडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन के लिए कंवर्जन किट ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । जाएगा। स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषण करती है किउक्त माडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. 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 समतुल्यहैं।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 280 ) /2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2006

S.O. 2771. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion kit for Platform machine ) with digital indication of " V5000 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " Vamendu" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Vamendu , A- 54 , G.I.D.C. Electronic Estate , Gandhi Nagar -382 028 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/61 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion kit for Platform machine) with a maximum capacity of 500 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

practices. In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing is done to prevent the opening the machine for fradulent Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 1000 kg . with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10k , 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 (280)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 06349 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत की राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2772, -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 प्रदत्त् शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बीटा इंजीनियरिंग क्वर्क्स , 42/250 , विजय नगर फ्लैट, विजय नगर चार रास्ता, नारनपुरा, अहमदाबाद-382013 गुजराव, द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " बी ई-40टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (वेब्रिज ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बीटा " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/10 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त माडल विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40,000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्रा. है। यह मशीन यथार्थता वर्ग III वाली हैं । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलत्त प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तौलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है। उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

स्टॉम्पिग प्लॅट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषण करती है कि उक्त माडल के अनुमोदन को इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गल उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मांडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एम ) अंतराल सहित 5 टन से 100 टन तक की अधि कतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 332 ) /2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामिि :

367 2006 6350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( 11 ) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2006

S.O. 2772.-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 Welghts and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( weighbridge type) with digital indicatlon belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class III ) of "BE-40T " series with brand name " BETA" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Beta Engineering Work, 42/250 , Vijai Nagar Fiat , Vijai Nagar Char Rasta, Naranpura, Ahmedabad- 382013 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approvai mark IND/ 09/05 / 10;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load ceil based non - automatic weighing instrument (weighbridge type) with a maximum capacity of40,000 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts 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 instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 100 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5kg . or more and with ' e ' value 1x10k, 2x10k or 5x10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principie, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 (332)/2002 ]

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

6351 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आबाद 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2773, केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के समान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 पर 60) तथा कार और नाप 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 बैंकी इमक , 230 , प्रथम तल , 6वां मुख्य, चतुर्थ स्टेज, इण्डस्ट्रीयल डाउन , राजाजीनगर, बंगलौर -560044 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थत ( थार्थत वर्ग- III ) बाले " ची आई- टीटी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल काप प्रकार ) को मॉडल का, जिसके लंड का नाम " ट्राइडेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिश्न आई एम डी/09 /05 /497 समनुरेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलम उपकरण ( टेबल होम प्रकार का) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमत्ता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 प्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का माग 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आवेक्तुलन बुक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यथकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्वाम्पिंग प्लेड के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को पूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 को उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्ररत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी मिनिमति द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के जैसे ही नेफ, बधार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 3 ग्रा. तक " ई " जान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन बापसान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " माग के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन माग सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10* , को हैं, जो भगात्मक वा ऋणात्मक चूर्णांक वा सुम्प के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 158 )/2005 ] :: पी.. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2006

S.O. 2773. 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 series " B1 - TT " of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name TRIDENT " manufactured by M/ s Benki Inc. , #230 , 1st Floor, 6th Main , 4th Stage , Industrial Town , Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560044 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/497 ;

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

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for e' value of 100mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10k , 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 ( 158 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6353 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नईदिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2774.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डयूरेल डिजी वेईंग सिस्टम , समन्वय काम्प्लेक्स, घोघा सर्कल , घोघा रोड, भावनगर, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले "डी जे टी टी " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डयूरेल डिजी" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/430 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त माडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित (टेबल टोप प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 11 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 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 ।

PREMIUM COUNTER

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 47 )/2002 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक. माप विज्ञान 6354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2774.-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 " DJTT" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) and with brand name " DURELL DIGI " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Durell Digi Weighing System , Samanvay Complex, Ghogha Circle , Ghogha Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/430;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 11kg. and minimum capacity of 50g. The verification scale interval (e) is 1g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

COUNTER SCALE

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 5000 for ' e ' value of 1mg . to 50mg. and with number of verification seale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 (47)/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6355 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2775.- 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 डयूरेल डिजी , वेईंग सिस्टम , समन्वय काम्प्लेक्स , घोघा सर्कल घोघा रोड , भावनगर , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी जे टी टी " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ड्यूरेल डिजी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/431 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है।

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत 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 ।

जाएगी । स्टांम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी की और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल 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 ( 47)/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6356

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2775. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic (Table top type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of medium " DJTT" series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DURELL DIGI " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M /s . DURELL DIGI Weighing System , Samanvay Complex , Ghogha Circle , Ghogha Road , Bhavnagar , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2004/431 ;

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or nagative 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 (47 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6357 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपंत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2776.- 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;

अंतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डयूरेल डिजी वेईंग सिस्टम , समन्वय काम्प्लेक्स , घोघा सर्कल , घोघा रोड, भावनगर गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -11 ) वाले " डी जे पी एफ " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डयूरेल डिजी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/432 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 110 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 500 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आंधेयतुलन 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, और50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

कीजाएगी। स्टांम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान (एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 300 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5× 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (47 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2057GI/2006-10 6358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006.

S.O. 2776 .--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 ofthe powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "DJPF " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " DURELL DIGI " (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . DURELL DIGI Weighing System , Samanvay Complex, Ghogha Circle , Ghogha Road, Bhavnagar , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/432;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 110kg . and minimum capacity of 500g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 10g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Inaddition 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 50 kg . and up to 300kg.with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (47)/2002 ]

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

6359 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2777.- 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;

अंतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स डयूरेल डिजी वेईंग सिस्टम , समन्वय काम्प्लेक्स , घोघा सर्कल , घोघा रोड , भावनगर , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी जे पी एफ " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित , तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के. मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डयूरेल डिजी " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/433 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है।

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

कीजाएगी। स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा.या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधि क और 300 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * या 5× 10*, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (47 )/2002 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2777.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self indicating , non - automatic , (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " DJPF " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DURELL DIGI " (herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s . DURELL DIGI Weighing System, Samanvay Complex , Ghogha Circle , Ghogha Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2004/433 ;

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy aand performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 300 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g' or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 1.0 % , 2 × 10k or 5x10k , 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 approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 47 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6361 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 22 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2778. -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 देखखें ) 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 जिनियस इलैक्ट्रानिक कम्पनी , बी-2/19 , रूनवाल नगर , कोलबाद , थाणे ( वैस्ट ) , -400601 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले ' जी' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम 'जिनियस ' है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/321 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल इलैक्ट्रो मैगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पनसेशन आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 350 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और माडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर बेचने से पहले या बाद में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं 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 सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तौलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अन्तराल 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 ( 75 ) /2006]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2006

S.O. 2778.- 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 ) of series "G " and with brand name " GENIUS " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M /s . Genius Electronic Company, B - 2 /19, Runwal Nagar , Kolbad, Thane ( West ) -400 601 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /06/321 ;

ENIUS

The said Model is an electormagnetic force compensation based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 350g. and minimum capacity of 200mg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

[F. No. WM-21 (75)/2006 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6363 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2779.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री इलैक्ट्रॉनिक सिस्टम्स, दुकान नं. 82 , ए-3 विंग , फ्लैट नं. 17, सिभी पार्क, साई चौक , न्यूसानगवी , पूणे-27 , द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले' एस. आई. पी. -30' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' सिमनस' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/340 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

स्टाम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकित के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर बेचने से पहले या बाद में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं 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 सेजिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अन्तराल 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।

[फर एम-21 ( 19 ) / 2006 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामू निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 6364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 23rd June, 2006

S.O. 2779.- 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 " SIP - 30 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " SIEMENS " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Shree Electronic Systems , Shop No. 82 , A- 3 Wing, Flat No.17 , Siddhi Park, Sai Chowk, New Sangvi , Pune- 27 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/340;

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

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram, working principle etc, before or after sale.

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 19)/2006 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6365 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2780.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री इलैक्ट्रॉनिक सिस्टम्स, दुकान नं. 82 , ए-3 विंग , फ्लैट नं. 17 , सिधी पार्क , साई चौक , न्यूसानगवी , पूणे -27 , द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' एस. आई. टी.-30 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' सिमनस' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/341 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है।

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और माडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्यता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर बेचने से पहले या बाद में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं 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 सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अन्तराल 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 ( 19 )/2006] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2057 GI/2006-11 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

6366

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2780.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " SIT - 30 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SIEMENS" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Shree Electonic Systems , Shop No. 82, A- 3 Wing , Flat No.17, Siddhi Park, Sai Chowk, New Sangvi , Pune- 27 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /06/341 ;

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) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design , circuit diagram , working principle etc. before or after sale.

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 ofsimilar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . or with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 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 ( 19 )/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6367 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नईदिल्ली , 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2781.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री इलैक्ट्रानिक सिस्टम्स, दुकान नं. 82 , ए-3 विंग , फ्लैट नं. 17, सिधी पार्क, साई चौक, न्यूसानगवी , पूणे -27 , द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' एस. आई. ई. - 1000 ' श्रृंखला के अंककः सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' सिमन्स ' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/342 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और माडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्य निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर बेचने से पहले या बाद में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं 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 सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10* , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 19 )/2006 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2781.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self indicating . non -automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SIE - 1000 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SIEMENS" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s. Shree Electronic Systems , Shop No. 82, A-3 Wing , Flat No.17 Siddhi Park, Sai Chowk, New Sangvi , Pune- 27 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /06 /342 ;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e ) 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 result . The instrument operate on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 19)/2006 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6369 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2782.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित. प्राधिकारी द्वारा फिसीकलेश टेक्नीस्के बेंडेसेंम्टालट ( पी टी बी ) , जर्मनी, द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स क्राटलर जैसेलशेफट एम बी एच एण्ड कम्पनी , बिलडगैसे -40 , ए-6893 , लेस्टेन्यू/ आस्ट्रिया द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स रोकबिन फ्लो मीटर इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बी-24 , साइट-4 , साहिबाबाद इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , जिला गाजियाबाद-201010 उत्तर प्रदेश स्क्रू प्रकार के फ्लो मीटर और जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' ओ.एम.जी. ' है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/05/946 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल इलैक्ट्रिकल काउंटर सहित स्क्रू टाइप फ्लो मीटर का एक मॉडल है जो सामान्य आकार के साथ - साथ विभिन्न प्रवाह रेंजों से युक्त है । इस मीटर में एक स्क्रू स्पिडल पेअर और इनक्लोजिंग हाउस लगा हुआ है । द्रव्य के प्रवाह से स्क्रू स्पिडल एक समान गति से चलते हैं। यह गति उपकरण के एक ओर लगे ट्रांसड्यूसर के द्वारा दो कंज्यूक्यूटिव ओपोजिंग पल्स ट्रान्स में परिवर्तित हो जाती है। काउंटर काउंटिंग मकैनिज्म में इलैक्ट्रिकल एडजेस्ट होता है । इस तकनीक का विवरण निम्नलिखित है-

फ्लोमीटर स्क्रू प्रकार- प्रकार इलैक्ट्रीक काउंटर नं. सीएमआर के या पीयूजेड 1000 माडल नं.-ओ एम जी आकार-15-150 पी 64/कारस यथार्थता-+ 0.15% वास्तविक प्रवाह अधिकतम प्रवाह रेंज 5000 लीटर/मिनट तापमान रेंज-20 ° सें. से 200 सें.

इस काउंटर को खाद्य पदार्थों अथवा ऐसी गैसों के लिए अनुमोदित नहीं किया गया है जो दबाव में तरल पदार्थ में परिवर्तित हो जाती हैं। स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (219)/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 6370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2782.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch - Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) , Germany is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by 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 Screw type flow meter of brand ' OMG' and manufactured by M/ s . Krautler Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. , Bildgasse 40 , A- 6893 Lustenau/ Austria and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/ s . Rockwin Flow meter India Private Limited, B-24, Site - IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, District- Ghaziabad- 201010 , Uttar Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/05/946 ;.

The said model ( see the figure given above) is a Screw type flow meter with electrical counter for various flow ranges and nominal sizes . The meter comprises of the screw spindle pair and the enclosing housing . The flow of the liquid sets the screw spindles in uniform motion. This motion is converted into two consecutive opposing pulse trains by transducers mounted on the side of the instrument . The counter is adjusted electrically in the counting mechanism . The technical details as follows-

Type- Screw type flow meter

Electrical counter No. CMR - K or PUZ 1000

Model No.- OMG

Size- 15-150 P 64/ cors

Accuracy-+/- 0.15% of actual flow.

Max Flow range-5000 litre/minute

Temperature Range- 20 °C to 200 °C

The counter has not been approved for foodstsuffs or for gases that liquefy under pressure .

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

[F. No. WM-21 (219)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6371 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2783.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री अम्बिका स्केल मैन्यूफैक्चरिंग नरोदा रेलवे क्रासिंग नरोदा-382340अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " नं. 17 " श्रृंखला के एनलाग सूचक सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अम्बिका " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/207 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल कम्पाउंड लीवर सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित ( मैकेनिकल वेब्रिज स्टीलयार्ड प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30,000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है ।

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

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

[फा. स. एस-21 ( 55 )/2006 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6372

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2006

S.O. 2783. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of, non-automatic weighing instrument mechanical weighbridge - steelyard type with analogue indication belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of ' No. 17 ' series and with brand name " AMBIKA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Shri Ambika Scale Mfg . Works , 6 , Hitendrangar Sah . Audyogik Vasahat Ltd. , Nr . Chest Disease Hospital , O/ s . Naroda Railway Crossing , Naroda- 382 340 , Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/63 /207;

AMBIKA

The said model is a non - automatic weighing instrument (mechanical weighbridge- steelyard type ) based on the principles of compound levers with a maximum capacity of 30,000kg . and minimum capacity of 100kg. The verification scale interva! ( e ) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent 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 instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonnes with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5kg or more and with ' e' value 1 × 10k , 2x10 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 (55 )/2006]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6373 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2784.- 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 (मीचे 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 हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल मथार्थता 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 बजाज डिजिटल सिस्टम , 1 , साय पूजा कम्पलेक्स , संबूज हॉस्पीटल के पीछे , भवा बापूनगर , अरविंद नगर, अहमदाबाद-380024 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) बाले " एस टी जे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का माम " बजाज डिजिटल सिस्टम " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 872 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

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

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

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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्राम तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10", 2× 10* या 5× 10* , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (163 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2057 G1/2006-12 6374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2784.- 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 " STJ - 22 " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " BAJAJ DIGITAL SYSTEM" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Bajaj Digital Systems , 1 , Sai Puja Complex, Behind Samjuba Hospital, Naya Bapunagar, Arvind Nagar, Ahmedabad- 380 024 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/872 ;

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

PREMIU COUNTER

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 5000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for 'e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 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 ( 163 )/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6375 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31,1928

नई दिल्ली , 23 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2785.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976. का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए स्खेगा 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 बजाज डिजिटल सिस्टम , 1 , साय पूआ कम्पलेक्स संबूजा हॉस्पीटल के पीछे , नवा बापूनगर , अरविंद नगर , अहमदाबाद-380024 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस टी टी -30 के" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बजाज डिजिटल सिस्टम " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 873 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । :

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 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 कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (163 )/2002] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2785. 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 digitial indication of " STT - 30K" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " BAJAJ DIGITAL SYSTEM " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Bajaj Digital Systems , 1 , Sai Puja Complex, Behind Samjuba Hospital , Nava Bapunagar , Arvind Nagar , Ahmedabad- 380 024 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/ 873 ;

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

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 163 )/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 6377 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 23 जून, 2006

का. आ. 2786 ,-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मागक (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 बजाज डिजिटल सिस्टम , 1 , साय पूजा कम्पलेक्स, संजूबा हॉस्पीटल , के पीछे , नवा बापूनगर , अरविंद नगर, अहमदाबाद-380024 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस पी पी-1000 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचम सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण (प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बजाज डिजिटल सिस्टम " है और जिसे अनुमोदम चिह्न आई एम डी/09/2005/874 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापस्नान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलन्प्रत्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उप्रदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण-पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी 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 ग्रा. या अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10000 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 ऋणात्भक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 163 ) /2002]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 6378

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2006

S.O. 2786.- 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 ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self- indicating , non-automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SPP - 1000 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " BAJAJ DIGITAL SYSTEM " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Bajaj Digital Systems , I , Sai Puja Complex, Behind Samjuba Hospital , Nava Bapunagar, Arvind Nagar, Ahmedabad- 380 024 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /2005/874 ;

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

PLATFORM

+30 hours Battery

Back up Heavy stainless steelpan

Environmentally protected Loadcel Auto zero tracking Software Calibration AGON

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall 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 ofsame series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 5000 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 163 )/2002]

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

6379

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 6 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2787- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

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

(2)

(1)

1. IS15678 : 2006 दाब आरोपितं प्राकृतिक गैस कीपाइपलाइन इंटेलिजेंट पिगिंग- रीति संहिता 2. IS 15679: 2006 दाब आरोपित प्राकृतिक गैस हेतु गैस पाइपलाइनों की तप्त टेपिंग , स्टॉपल प्लगिंग , लाइन प्लगिंग- रीति संहिता

स्थापिततिथि

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

(3)

(4)

जून2006 कुछ नहीं

जून 2006 कुछ नहीं

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रिय 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।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ]

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

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

NewDelhi , the 6th July,2006

S. O. 2787. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7. of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schecdule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:-

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Year and title of the Indian Standards Established

(1)

(2)

1. IS 15678 : 2006 Intelligent Pigging of Pressurized NaturalGasPipelines-Code ofPractice 2. IS 15679: 2006 Hot Tapping, Stopple Plugging/ LinePlugging of Pressurized Natural Gas Pipelines- CodeofPractice

Date of Established

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

(4)

(3)

June 2006 None

None

June2006 Copyofthis 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 alsoBranch Offices:Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. PCD/G- 7 (Gazette)] Dr. D. K. CHAUDHURI , Sc . ' F' and Head(PCD)

नईदिल्ली , 10 जुलाई, 2006

का. आ. 2788. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

संशोषण की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

(4)

(3)

2006

संशोधन सं. 2 , मई 2006

आई एस 8034: 2002 निम्म्जनीय पम्पलेट- विशिष्टि( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) 6380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

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

(2)

(4)

(3)

संशोधन सं. 2 , मई 2006

1 जून 2006

2. आई एस 8472 : 1998 पम्प पुनर्योजी स्वच्छ ठंडे विशिष्टि( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

संशोधन सं. 1 , मई 2006

1 जून , 2006

3. आई एस 9079: 2002 कृषि और जलपूर्ति के लिए साफ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प- विशिष्टि( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

संशोधन सं. 4 , मई 2006

19जून, 2006 4. आई एस 14106: 1996 डायरेक्ट एक्सन हथबरमे विशिष्टि

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

[सं. एम. ई. डी./जी-2: 1 ]

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

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2006

S. O. 2788.-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 ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :-

SCHEDULE

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

No. and year of the

amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 June 2006

Amendment No. 2, May 2006

IS 8034: 2002 Submersible pump sets-Specification ( Third Revision )

1 June 2006

AmendmentNo. 2, May 2006

2. IS 8472 : 1998 Pumps regenerative or clear, cold water-Specification

1 June 2006

Amendment No. 1 , May 2006

3. IS 9079 : 2002 Electric monoset pumps for clear, cold water for agricultural and water supply purposes Specification

19 June 2006

Amendment No. 4, May 2006

4. IS 14106 : 1996 Direct action hand pumps Specification

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

[No. MED/G-2: 1 ]

C. K. VEDA, Sc . ' F' and Head (Technical Engineering)

नई दिल्ली, 10 जुलाई, 2006

का. आ. 2789.भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो 6381 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या ,

वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(2)

(3)

(4) (1)

30 जून , 2006

7587 ( भाग 3 ): 1976 खानों में वाईडिंग के लिए केज सस्पेंशन गियर - विशिष्टि भाग 5 समकारी प्लेट

आई एस 7587 ( भाग 5 ) : 2006 खानों में वाईडिंग के लिए केज सस्पेंशन गियर- विशिष्टि भाग 5 समकारी प्लेट ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

[सं. एम. ई. डी./जी-2: 1 ]

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

New Delhi , the 10th July, 2006

S. O. 2789- Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl. No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

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

(4)

(I)

(2)

(3)

30 June, 2006 IS 7587 (Part 5) : 2006 Cage suspension gear for winding in mines- Specification Part 5 Distribution plates (First revision)

IS 7587 (Part -3 ) : 1976 Čage suspension gear for winding in mines--specification Part 5 Equalizing plates

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

[No. MED/G -2: 1 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2790.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

मई2006 1 आई एस 11408 : 2006 आई एस ओ/आई ई सी 1864 1992 . सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी सूचना हस्तांतरण के लिये

2057 G1/2006-13 6382

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

(3)

(1)

(2)

अनरिकार्डिड 12.7 mm ( 0.5 in ) चौड़ी चुम्बकीय टेप -32 ftpmm (800 ftpi ) , एनआरजेड 1,126 ( 3200 ftpi ) फेस एन्कोडिड और 356ftpmm ( 9 042 ftpi ) एनआरजेड 1 ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मई 2006 आई एस 11409 : 2006 आई एस ओ/ आई ई सी 1863 1990 सूचना प्रक्रमण-32 ftpmm (800 ftpi ) - 32 cpmm (800 cpi ) पर एन आरजेड 1 , प्रयोग कर सूचना हस्तांतरण के लिये 9 -ट्रेक , 127 mm ( 0.5 in ) चौड़ी चुम्बकीय टेप (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मई2006 3. आई एस 11410 :2006 आई एस ओ/आई ई सी 3788 1990 सूचना प्रक्रमण-126ftpmm (3200 ftpi )- 63 cpmm (1600 cpi ) पर फेस एन्कोडिड प्रयोग कर सूचना हस्तांतरण के लिये 9 ट्रेक , 127 mm ( 0.5 in) चौड़ी चुम्बकीय टेप (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मई 2006 आई एस 14490 ( भाग 1 ) : 2006 आई एस ओ/ आई ई सी 15408-1 : 2005 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी- सुरक्षा तकनीक सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी की सुरक्षा के लिये मूल्यांकन के मापदंड भाग 1 परिचय एवं सामान्य मॉडल (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मई2006 5. आई एस 14490 ( भाग 2) : 2006 आई एस ओ/आई ई सी 15408-2 : 2005 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी सुरक्षा तकनीक सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी की सुरक्षा के लिये मूल्यांकन के मापदंड भाग । सुरक्षा आश्वासन की अपेक्षाएं (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मई2006 6. आई एस 14490 ( भाग 3 ): 2006 आई एस ओ/ आई ई सी 15408-3 : 2005 सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी सुरक्षा तकनीक सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी की सुरक्षा के लिये मूल्यांकन के मापदंड भाग ! सुरक्षा की कार्यात्मक अपेक्षाएं (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

[सं. एल टी डी/जी 75 ]

सुख बीर सिंह , प्रमुख ( एल आई टी डी)

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2006

S. O. 2790-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:

6383 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

SCHEDULE

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

Sl . No.

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

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) I.

May2006 IS 11408: 2006 ISO/IEC 1864 : 1992 Information technology unrecorded 12.7 mm (0.5 in) wide magnetic tape for information interchange 32 ftpmm (800 ftpi ) , NRZ1 , 126 ftpmm (3200 ftpi ) Phase encoded and 356ftpmm (9042 ftpi ) , NRZ1 ( First Revision)

May2006 IS 11409: 2006 ISO/IEC 1863 : 1990 Information technology-unrecorded 12.7 mm (0.5 in) wide magnetic tape for information interchangeNRZI at 32 ftpmm (800 ftpi )-32 cpmm (800 cpi ) ( First Revision)

May2006 IS 11410 : 2006 ISO/IEC 3788 : 1990 Information processing-9 -Track, 12.7 mm (0.5 in) wide magnetic tape for information interchange using phase encoding at 126 ftpmm (3200 ftpi)-63 cpmm (1 600 cpi) (FirstRevision)

May2006 IS 14990 (Part 1): 2006 ISO/IEC 15408-1 :2005 Information technology-security techniques-evaluation criteria for IT security: Part 1 Introduction and general model ( First Revision)

May2006 IS 14990 (Part 2) : 2006 ISO/ IEC 15408-2:2005 Information technology-security techinques evaluation criteria for IT security : Part 2 Security Functional Requirements (FirstRevision)

May2006 IS 14990 (Part 3): 2006 ISO/IEC 15408-3 :2005 Information technology-security techinques-evaluation criteria for ITsecurity : Part 3 Security Assurance Requirements (FirstRevision)

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.

[No. LTD/G-75]

SUKH BIR SINGH, Head (LITD) [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2006

का.आ. 2791.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) जिंसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 676 तारीख 17-2-2006 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल (इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में थूलेन्डी से फूलपुर पाइपलाइन परियोजना तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 1 मार्च , 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

गया है; और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

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

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

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

अनुसूची

गांव

सर्वे नं.

तहसील

जिला

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

0.1500

644

बेल्हा

लालगंज

प्रतापगढ़

0.1500

कुल

0.1501

308

लालगंज

अझारा

प्रतापगढ़

0.1396

294

0.2897

कुल

0.1030

987

कनेहटी

इलाहाबाद

फूलपुर

0.1030

कुल

[फा. सं. एल-14014/4/05- जीपी ( भाग -1) ]

एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 13th July, 2006

S.O. 2791.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gasnumber S.O. No. 676 dated 17-2-2006 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural gas from Thulendi to Phoolpur pipeline project in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 1st March , 2006; And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority ;

Andwhereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government; And whereas the Central Government, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines, has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

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

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest, on the date of the publication of the declaration, in the the GAIL ( India ) Limited, proposing 6385

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in GAIL (India), free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil

Village

District

SurveyNo.

Area to be acquired for ROU ( in Hectare)

644

0.1500

Belha

Lalganj

Pratapgarh

Total

0.1500

0.1501 Lalganj

Ajhara

Pratapgarh

0.1396

308 294

0.2897

Total

987

0.1030

Kanehati

Allahabad

Poolpur

0.1030

Total

[F. No. L- 14014/4/05 -GP (Part-1) ] S.B. MANDAL ,Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2006

का.आ. 2792.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1140 , तारीख 22 मार्च, 2006 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए सिवाए उन बातों के जो ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पूर्व की गई हैं , या जिन्हें करने का लोप किया गया है , श्री डी. वी. मित्तल , तहसीलदार को मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा हरियाणा, पंजाब एवं राजस्थान राज्य में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया;

और उक्त श्री डी. वी. मित्तल का स्थानांतरण हो गया है और श्री वाई. के. छोकर को उनके पद पर नियुक्त किया गया है;

और उक्त श्री डी. वी. मित्तल की मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड के साथ प्रतिनियुक्ति समाप्त हो गई है;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खंड (क ) के अनुसरण में और भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1140 , तारीख 22 मार्च , 2006 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए , नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति को उक्त मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए निम्नलिखित अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

व्यक्तिका नाम और पता

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

सम्पूर्ण हरियाणा एवं पंजाब राज्य श्री वाई. के. छोकर, तहसीलदार , प्रतिनियुक्ति पर ,

मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड , बी-35 व 36 , सेक्टर -1 ,

जिलाः गौतम बुद्ध नगर , नोएडा-201301 ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

[फा. सं. एल-14014/7/05- जी पी ]

एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2006

S.O. 2792.-Whereas , in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government vide Notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 1140, dated. 22nd March, 2006 appointed Shri D.V. Mittal, Tehsildar to perform the functions of the competent authority under said Act for laying of the pipeline by M/ s . GAIL (India) Limited in the state of Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan;

And, whereas , Shri D.V. Mittal has been transferred and Shri Y.K. Chhokar has been posted as his incument;

And, whereas , the deputation of the said Shri D.V. Mittal with M/s . GAIL (India ) Limited has come to and end;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (a) of Section (2) of the said Act and in supersession of the notification ofthe Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide S.O. 1140 , dated . 11th March, 2006, the Central Government hereby authorises the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent AuthorityAuthority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/ s . GAIL ( India ) Limited in the area mentioned in column (2) of the said schedule.

SCHEDULE

Area of Jurisdiction Name and Address of the Person

Shri Y.K. Chhokar , Tehsildar , on deputation to

Whole State of the Haryana and Punjab .

M/s. GAIL ( India) Limited , B- 35 and 36, Sector - 1

Distt.: Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida-201301 (Uttar Pradesh)

[F. No. L- 14014/7/ 05 -GP] S.B. MANDAL, Under Secy.

6386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2006

का. आ. 2793.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक प्ाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिएः

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

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है , कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, ईक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में भरतलाल ननामा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पाटीदार हाऊस , गीता मन्दिर रोड़, रतलाम-457001 (मध्य प्रदेश) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूचि

तहसील -थांदला

राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश

जिला - झाबुआ

कमांक

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे नम्बर क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

144

सेमलपाड़ा

0.1008

145

0.1224

146

0.2160

143

0.1368

140

0.0288

142

0.2016

139

0.0324

151

0.0144

152

0.1440

134

0.0720

116

0.1296

117

0.0288

118/3

0.0072

115/1

0.2808

115/2

0.0280

110

0.0140 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6387

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31, 1928

3 1

103/3 समलपाड़ा (जारी...)

103/4

103/5

101

100

102/2

97/1

181 2

सागवा

492

432 3

1866

खवासा

1867

1868 4

442

नहारपुरा

479

477

0.0025

0.1440

0.0490

0.0960

0.1760

0.1698

0.0032

0.0025

0.1152

0.0396

0.0140

0.0630

0.0025

0.1028

0.0720

0.1472

0.0585

0.1944

0.2140

0.0720

0.0072

0.0720

0.0612

0.1868

0.0144

0.0120

0.0480

0.0180

0.0025

0.0108

0.1656

[फा. सं. आर-25011/1 /2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस.के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2006

S. O. 2793.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Koyali to Ratlam in the state of Madhya Pradesh, a Pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

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

6388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Now therefore, in exercise of the Powers conferred by sub - section ( I) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

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

Schedule

District :- Jhabua

Tehsil : - Thandla

SI No.

SurveyNo.

Name of Village

144 1

Semalpara

145

146

143

140

142

139

151

152

134

116

117

118/3

115/1

115/2

110

103/3

103/4

103/5

101

100

102/2

97/1 State: -Madhya pradesh

Area in Hector

0.1008

0.1224

0.2160

0.1368

0.0288

0.2016

0.0324

0.0144

0.1440

0.0720

0.1296

0.0288

0.0072

0.2808

0.0280

0.0140

0.0025

0.1440

0.0490

0.0960

0.1760

0.1698

0.0032

0.0025

0.1152 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6389

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Semalpara (contd..)

181

492 2.

Sagwa

432 3

1866 Khawasa

1867

1868 4

442 Naharpura

479

477 4

0.0396

0.0140

0.0630

0.0025

0.1028

0.0720

0.1472

0.0585

0.1944

0.2140

0.0720

0.0072

0.0720

0.0612

0.1868

0.0144

0.0120

0.0480

0.0180

0.0025

0.0108

0.1656

[F. No. R -25011 /1/2006 -O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2006

का. आ. 2794.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए:

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

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है , कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, ईक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में भरतलाल ननामा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पाटीदार हाऊस , गीता मन्दिर रोड़, रतलाम-457001 (मध्य प्रदेश) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

2057 G1/2006-14 6390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

अनुसूचि

राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश

तहसील -मेघनगर

जिला झाबुआ

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

सर्वे नम्बर

कमांक

गाँव का नाम

0.0252

100

ढाढनिया

0.2412

101

0.0210

102

0.1224

0,0220

0.0072

01040

0.1450

183

0.2088

मेघनगर

0.2156

180

182

0.0162

125

0.2592

126

0.0018

123/1

0.0720

0.1440

122/1

122/2

0.0210

117

0.2880

0.3672

105/1/2

0.1448

105/2

106

0.0080

107

0.1800

0.0140

0.1520

0.2808

0.3818

0.2304

0.0166

0.0756

नवापाड़ा धन्ना

0.0012

257

0.0090

बेड़ावली

255

0.0015

256

0.0315

256/637

0.0420

230

0.0720

258

0.0020

262

0.0087

260

0.0630 6391

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अपाड़ 31 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

259 बेड़ावली निरन्तर......

261

266.

332

331

330

333

327

336

326

325

324

323

368

369

367

366

377

365

364

363

406 4

0.0490

0.0101

0.0210

0.0424

0.0110

0.0744

0.0280

0.0540

0.1008

0.0144

0.0280

0.0480

0.0104

0.0584

0.0152

0.0490

0.0491

0.0498

0.0630

0.0560

0.1440

0.0144

0.1728

407/2

536

537. 0.0420

0.0015

0.0020

407/3

535

534 0.0030

0.0280

531/5

0.0348

531/6

531/7 0.0320

0.0560

531/8

0.0140

531/10

0.0790

531/15

531/16 0.0630

0.0428

53.1/17

0.0348

531/14

527

528

526 0.0080

0.0896

0.0015.

0.0256 6392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

524 बेड़ावली निरन्तर.....

571

566

570

569

572/2

580

581

582

603/1

603/2

603/3

603/4

603/644

605

604/2

604/5

604/1

620

621

625

626

627

624 5

230/2

नौगांवा

230/1

231

233

234

232

276

278

277

280

281

282

283

284

289

290 [PART II-SEC . 3( ) 4

0.0140

0.0838

0.0212

0.0630

0.1296

0.0100

0.3600

0.1296

0.0144-

0.1980

0.1800

0.1764

0.1080

0.0900

0.0348

0.1260

0.0840

0.0844

0.1800

0.2808

0.0520

0.0208

0.0800

0.0135

0.0240

0.1080

0.2052

0.1154

0.0504

0.1252

0.0180

0.2160

0.0288

0.0108

0.0082

0.0936

0.0540

0.0648

0.1008

0.1296 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ 31,1928 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3 1

नौगांवा निरन्तर....

293

294

298

378

131. 6

गुड़ा छोटा

132

133

134

135

139

140

142

145

128

118

17 7

169

महुड़ा

170

168

167

166

165

176

177/1

178

179

180/1

189

478

479

480

481

483

484

462

485

440

439

438 0.0720 0.0721 $ 0.0810

0.0702 (0:1512 0.0540 0.0082 0.0360 01384 0.0240 0.0606 (0.0050 0:3312 00102 00.3942 0:1008 0.0324 0.0125 0.2592 0.0252 0:1296 0.0720 20.0792 0.0468 0:0216 0:0468 0.1888 60.1872 (0.0144 10.0004

04800 01224 0.0986 00:1188 0.0720 0.0252 0:1008 01368 0014080 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

433

0.0180

महुद्दा निरन्तर.....

434

0.1368

432

0.0252

430

0.2080

429

0.0576

369

0.4308

368

0.0360

367

0.0082

365

0.1152

[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस.के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 18th July, 2006

S. O. 2794.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Koyali to Ratlam in the state of Madhya Pradesh , a Pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

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

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

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

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

[भाग ।।- खण्ड 3(ii )]

Schedule

6395

District:- Jhabua

Tehsil : - Meghnagar

SurveyNo.

Name of Village

SI No.

100 1

Dadhaniya

101

102

183 2

Meghanagar

180

182

125

126

123/1

122/1

122/2

117 State: Madhya pradesh Area in Hectare

0.0252

0.2412

0.0210

0.1224

0.0220

0.0072

0.1040

0.1450

0.2088

0.2156

0.0162

0.2592

0.0018

0.0720

0.1440

0.0210

0.2880

105/1/2

105/2

106

107

1 3

31 Nawapada Dhanna

257

Bedawaii

255

256 0.3672

0.1448

0.0080

0.1800

0.0140

0.1520

0.2808

0.3816

0.2304

0.0166

0.0756

0.0012

0.0090

0.0015

0.0315

256/637

230

258

262

260 0.0420

0.0720

0.0020

0.0087

0.0630 6396

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

0.0490

259

Bedawali Con ...

0.0101

261

266

0.0210

332

0.0424

0.0110

331

330

0.0744

333

0.0280

327

0.0540

336

0,1008

326

0.0144

325

0.0280

324

0.0480

323

0.0104

368

0.0584

369

0.0152

367

0.0490

366

0.0491

0.0498

377

365

0.0630

364

0.0560

363

0.1440

406

0.0144

407/2

0.1728

536

0.0420

537

0.0015

0.0020

407/3

0.0030

535

534

0.0280

531/5

0.0348

0.0320

531/6

531/7

0.0560

531/8

0.0140

531/10

0.0790

531/15

0.0630

0.0428

531/16

531/17

0.0348

531/14

0.0080

527

0.0896

528

0.0015

526

0.0256

524

0.0140

571

0.0838 6397

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3 1

566 4

Bedawali Con ...

570

569

572/2

580

581

582

603/1

603/2

603/3

603/4

603/644

605

604/2

604/5

604/1

620

621

625

626

627

624 5

230/2

Naugawa

230/1

231

233

234

232

276

278,

277

280

281-

282

283

284

289

290

293

294

298

378 2057 G1 /2006-15

0.0212

0.0630

0.1296

0.0100

0.3600

0.1296

0.0144

0.1980

0.1800

0.1764

0.1080

0.0900

0.0348

0.1260

0.0840

0.0844

0.1800

0.2808

0.0520

0.0208

0.0800

0.0135

0.0240

0.1080

0.2052

0.1154

0.0504

0.1252

0.0180

0.2160

0.0288

0.0108

0.0082

0.0936

0.0540

0.0648

0.1008

0.1296

0.0720

0.0721

0.0810

0.0792 6398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

3 1

131

Guda Choota

132

133

134

135

139

140

142

145

128

17 7

Mahuda

169

170

168

167

166

165

176

177/1

178

179

180/1

189

478

479

480

481

483

484

462

485

440

439

438

433

434

432

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

0.1512

0.0540

0.0082

0.0360

0.1384

0.0240

0.0696

0.0050

0.3312

0.0102

0.3942

0.2184

0.1008

0.0324

0.0125

0.2592

0.0252

0.1296

0.0720

0.0792

0.0468

0.0216

0.0468

0.1368

0.1872

0.0864

0.0144

0.1800

0.1224

0.0936

0.1188

0.0720

0.0252

0.1008

0.1368

0.1080

0.0180

0.1368

0.0252

0.2080 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

6399 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

429

Mahuda Conte..

0.0576

369

0.4308

368

0.0360

367

0.0082

365

0.1152

[ F. No. R -25011/1/2006-O.R. -1 ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2795.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए

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

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है , कोई व्यक्ति, जो उवत अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, ईक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में भरतलाल ननामा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पाटीदार हाऊस , गीता मन्दिर रोड़, रतलाम-457001 (मध्य प्रदेश) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा। THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii )] 6400

अनुसूचि

राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश

जिला

रतलाम

तहसील - बाजना

सर्वे नम्बर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

गाँव का नाम

कमांक

267

0.1922

जाबड़.

0.1728

268

0.3888

284

0.0216

282

0.1944

285

[फा. सं. आर-25011/2/ 2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2006

S. O. 2795.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Koyali to Ratlam in the state of Madhya Pradesh, a Pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

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

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

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6401 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Schedule

District:- Ratlam

Tehsil : - Bajna

State: - Madhyapradesh SL.NO.

SURVEY NO

AREA IN HECTARE Nameof Village

Jabod

267

0.1922

268

0.1728

284

0.3888

282

0.0216

285

0.1944

[F. No. R-25011/2/2006- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2006

का. आ. 2796.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिएः

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, ईक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में भरतलाल ननामा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पाटीदार हाऊस , गीता मन्दिर रोड़, रतलाम-457001 (मध्य प्रदेश) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 6402

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

अनुसूचि

राज्य मध्य प्रदेश

जिला रतलाम

तहसील रतलाम

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर मे गाँव का नाम

सर्वे नम्बर

कमांक

10/1/1/45

0.0171

धबई पाड़ा

163/2

0.0843

जुलवानिया

0.1800

151

0.0540

156

152

0.1445

83/1/4

0.0080

नन्दलाई

234

0.0140

238

0.1080

235

0.2736

236

0.1656

222/1

0.5902

0.0252

222/9

222/7

0.0108

222/6

0.2520

222/4

0.2100

220

0.1800

220/242/2

0.1584

220/242/1

0.2592

218

0,0648

213

0.0080

200/1/2

0.0648

200/1/1

0.1040

3/1

बंजली

0.1764

0.2160

0.0140

0.0764

0.0720

0.2160

0.1980

8/3

0.0252

8/2

0.0015

8/2/5

0.2220

25/2

0.0980

29/1

0.1188

0.2952

0.0288

50/1

0.4320

50/2

0.0040 6403 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

0.0936.

46/1

बंजली निरन्तर

0.0612

46/2

0.0144

1402/1629

बांगरोद

0.0597

1377/1628

0.2609

1441

712/5

0.1735

700

0.2376

0.3420

699

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 2/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस.के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2006

S. O. 2796.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Koyali to Ratlam in the state of Madhya Pradesh , a Pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

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

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

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

6404

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006 /ASADHA 31 , 1928

Schedule

Tehsil: - Ratlam

State :-Madhya pradesh

District: - Ratlam

Area in Hectare SL . NO .

SurveyNo.

Nameof Village

0.0171

10/1/1/45

Dhabalpara

0.0843

163/2

Julwaniya

0.1800

151

156

0.0540

152

0.1445

0.0080

Nandlai

83/1/4

234

0.0140

0.1080

238

235

0.2736

236

0.1656

222/1

0.5902

222/9

0.0252

222/7

0.0108

222/6

0.2520

222/4

0.2100

220

0.1800

220/242/2

0.1584

0.2592

220/242/1

218

00648

213

0.0080

200/1/2

0.0648

200/1/1

0.1040

3/1

0.1764

Banjali

0.2160

0.0140

0.0764

0.0720

0.2160

10.

0.1980

8/3

0.0252

0.0015

8/2

8/2/5

0.2220

25/2

0.0980

29/1

0.1188

0.2952

0.0288

50/1

0.4320

50/2

0.0040

46/1

0.0936

46/2

0.0612 6405 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

0.0144

1402/1629

Bangrod

0.0597

1377/1628

1441-

0.2609

712/5

0.1735

0.2376

700

0.3420

699

[ F. No. R -26011/2/2006-O.R. -1 ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई, 2006

का. आ. 2797.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्व में मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मेसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीस लिमिटेड के गोवा मे उत्तरी/ दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में पूर्वी गोदावरी जिले के बिभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिये ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह ऑवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूचि में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः, अव, 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 , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूचि में वर्णित भूमि में हितबध्द है उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 .. की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संवध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड, 16-23-60 , रोड नंबर 1 , अयोध्या नगर, डइरी फार्म सेंटर, काकिनाडा, पूर्वी गोदावरि जिला, आन्ध्रप्रदेश 533001 की लिखित स्म में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 2057 101/2006-15 6406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

अनुसूचि

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: ईस्ट गोदावरि

मंडलः ताल्लारेवु

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/ सब डिविजन सं

2 1

114

1) मल्लवरम

118/ 1 *

118/2

600/6ए

600/ 6सि

601/1

603

604

605

617/1

618/1

618/2

618/3

620

627/4

628

629

630

631/10

631/11/ए

631/11/वी

631/2

631/3

631/4

631/5

631/6ए

631/6वी

631/7

631/8

631/9ए आर ओ यू अर्जिल करने केलिए क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेपर

सि एयर

एयर

5 0

40 0

75 0

95 0

55 0

70 0

30 0

85 0

30 1

70 0

30 0 .

55 0

15 0

60 0

45 0

10 0

70 0

15 0

05 0

45 0

50 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ अषाद 31 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

831/9वी 1 ) मल्लयरम (निरंतर )

655

656

857

858/1

658/2

658/3

655/4

659/2

859/3

660/2

660/3

651

662/3

663

864/1

664/2

214/2* 2) पोलेकुररू

659

660

664

665

884

685

688

जिला : ईस्ट गोधाधार

मंडलः काजुलर

557/1 1 ) काजुलूर

32/3

453*

113

2) तरलमपूडि

242/1 3) जगन्नादगिरि

6407

10 0

45 0

80 0

40 08

20 00

85, 0

70 0

21.

60 0

75 0

50 0

50 21

75 07

70 0

05 26

95 87

70 02

40 0

10 01

40 0

05 0

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

90 01

10 0

40 21 6408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

2 1

मंडलः करपा

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

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: ईस्ट गोदावरि

59/3 1 ) वेमूलवाडा

435

436/1

436/2

439/3

439/4

439/35

439/36

439/37

439/38

439/39

439/44

444/ 2बी

444/3

444/5

444/7

445/1

445/2

445/3

445/5

465/1

465/18

465/19

465/21

465/22

465/23

465/25

465/26

465/27 0

50 0

25 0

95 0

80 0

45 0

75 0

10 0

80 02

00 02

35 0

25 0

55 0

75 0

60 0

35 0.

80 0

25 0

55 6409 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

465/28

09.

2) वेमूलवाडा (निरंतर)

468

55 * का.आ. 3399, दिनांक:18-10-2002 द्वारा पी.एम.पी. ऐक्ट, 1962 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत सूचित किये गये सर्वे नंबर । इस प्रतिपादन नया विस्तीर्ण केलिए

[फा. सं . एल-14014/45/2002 -जी.पी. ] एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2006

S. O. 2797.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of M/s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, formerly known as M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of East Godavari District in the State of Andhra Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by M/ s Reliance Gas Pipelines 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 are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, D. No : 16-23-60 , Road No. 1 . Ayodhya Nagar , Dairy farm Centre , Kakinada , East Godavari District - 533 001. Andhra Pradesh State .

6410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Schedule

District : East Godavari

Mandal: Tallarevu

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

114

1) Mallavaram

118/1*

118/2

600/6A

600/6C

601/1

603

604

605

617/1

618/1

618/2

618/3

620

627/4

628

629

630

631/10

631/11 /A

631/11/B

631/2

631/3

631/4

631/5

631/6A

631/6B

631/7

631/8

631/9A

State: Andhra Pradesh Area to be acquired for ROU Hectare

Are

C-Are

40 0

75 0

95 0

55 0

25 0

40 0

30 0

85 0

70 1

30 0

55 0

60 0

45 0

10 0

70 0

10 0

15 0

05 0

00 0

80 0

00 0

50 0 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6411

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

2 1

631/9B

1) Mallavaram (Contd ... )

655

656

657

658/1

658/2

658/3

658/4

659/2

659/3

660/2

660/3

661

662/3

663

664/1

664/2

214/2*

2) Polekurru

659

660

664

665

684

685

688

District : East Godavari Mandal : Kajuiuru

557/1

1) Kajuluru

32/3

453*

113

2) Tarlamapudi

242/1

3) Jagannadhagiri

10 0

95 0

80 0

20 0

85 0

70 0

30 0

60 0

95. 0

75 0

50 0

75 0

70 0

40 0

10 0

40 0

75 State: Andhra Pradesh 0

90 0

0 6412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

2 1

District: East Godavari Mandal : Karapa

59/3

1) Vemulavada

435

436/1

436/2

439/3

439/4

439/35

439/36

439/37

439/38

439/39

439/44

444/2B

444/3

444/5

444/7

445/1

445/2

445/3

445/5

465/1

465/18

465/19

465/21

465/22

465/23

465/25

465/26

465/27

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

5 State: Andhra Pradesh

10 0

40 0

25 0

95 0

20 0

80 0

45 0

85 0

10 0

00 0

35 0

25 0

75 0

60 0

35 0

80 0

25 0

55 85

6413 [भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

465/28

1 ) Vemulavada (Contd ... )

Survey Nas, notified vite 8.0 3399 dated 18/10/2002 u/ s 3 (1 ) of P &MP Act 1962, Present proposalistosp additional areas.

PIMF ( 03

[F. No. L-14014/45 /2002 -GP ) S.B MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2798. केंद्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलिया और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधीकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 11962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधिम जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्याका. आ. 4640 तारीख 6 दिसम्बर 2008 द्वारा उत अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मेसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्व में मेसर्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इनफास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मेसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीस लिमिटेड के गोवा उत्तरी दक्षिणी अर्पतट में खोज दलकों और आन्ध्र प्रदेश में संरचनाओं से आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य में नलगोंडा जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिये मेसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइनः विधाने के DER BOL प्रयोजन के लिये उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियों जनता को तारीख 30 जनवरी 2006 को उपलब्धता दी गई थी;

और पाइपलाइन विकाने के संबंध में, जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के औधकारका अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है, उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा की उपधारा द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति केन्द्रीय घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूषि के विधिर्मिष्ठा पनि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के अर्जन किया जाता है; प्रयोग कर करते हुए, यह लोग के अधिकार का और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपचार द्वारा पदम शक्तियों का प्रयोग हुए, यह निर्देश देती हैकि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के क विल्लंगमों से मुक्त लाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड बारी में केन्द्रीय सरकार में होने की बजाए , सभी 2057 GI/2006-17 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 6414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

अनुसूचि

आर ओ यूअर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल गाँव कानाम

सर्वे सं. /सब डिविजन सं.

एयर

हेक्टेयर

सिएयर

5 1

राज्य: आन्ध्रा प्रदेश

जिल्ला: नलगोंडा

मंडल मोते

235

1) नामावरम्

राज्य: आन्ध्रा प्रदेश

जिल्ला: नलगोंडा

मंडल: सूर्यापेट

1) वेंकटरामापुरम्

[फा. सं. एल-14014/25/2003 -जी.पी. ] एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2006

S. O. 2798- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 4640 dated 6th December , 2005 , issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right . of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M's Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited formerly known as M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited , a company promoted by M/s Reliance Industries Limited , to the various consumers of Nalgonda District in the State of Andhra Pradesh : 1

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 30-01-2006;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of sald Act, sub.mited report to the Central Government ;

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

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

And further , in exercise of the Central Government pipeline shali , instead of the declaration, in Reliane

conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, ts that the right of user in the said land for laying the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of Pipelines Limited, free from all encumbrances .

6415 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Schedule

State : Andhra Pradesh Mandal : Mothey

District : Nalgonda

Area to be acquired for ROU Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Hectare Are

C-Are 1

5 1. Namavaram

235

State : Andhra Pradesh Mandal : Suryapet

District : Nalgonda

1. Venkataramapuram

[ F. No. L -14014/25/2003-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2006

का . आ. 2799.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 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 इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ), की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि मे 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 जिसकों 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 लाल सिंह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, प्लाट न० 59%, सेक्टर 21 ए, फरीदाबाद- 121001 हरियाणा) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 6416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 22, 2006 ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART I SEC . 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

तहसील: बल्लभगढ़

जिला: फरीदाबाद

राज्य: हरियाणा क०

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में 1

53/15/1

सीकरी

0.0255

[फा. सं. आर-31015/2/2005- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi the 21st July, 2006

S. O. 2799- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya ( Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NGO of Delhi should be laid by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1904 (50. of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person, intersected in the land described in the said Schedule , may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri LAL SINGH, Competent Authority, Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Plot No. 590, Sector 21 A, Faridabad- 121 001 (Haryana)

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT: FARIDABAD

TEHSIL: BALLABHGARH

STATE: HARYANA AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO .

NAME OF VILLAGE

S.NO.

0.0255

53/15/1

SEEKRI

1 .

[ F. No. R-31015/2/2005 - O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

6418140 भारत का राजपत्र सलाई 2006/ अषाढ ३D 317

(2)

कोयनकाल (শোক)

( 8 ) , OIPS & 2005 (17 ) POPS, COPS & PRES, (TMP ) E (۱۴ ) नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई , 2006

(5)

কাত্যায় সঠ্যিাংক দিচেগিয়ে একী চালা ( পা) চারীYTE का. आ. 2800.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र (अर्जुन और निकासह पेट अभिलियम् 295 ला 12 का 20).की (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1. ) के अधीन जारी की गई और भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2, खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 26 फरवरी , 2005 में प्रकाशित भाषिक गीत सरकार के कोसला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या काकाम 24 मरीख कसरि प्रवपतिद्वारास अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में किक माप 1957 हेक्टर लगड्या 1037.25 एकड (लगभग) है , खनिजों के खनन, खदान, बोर करने उनकी खुदाई करने और खनिजों को लजीश करने, उन्हें प्राप्त करने उन पर कार्य करने और उन्हें ले जाने के अधिकारों का अर्जन करने में अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

दी है; और सक्षम प्राधिकारी, वे उक्त अधिनियम की धाड्स हिडिके अनुसाहटा दीसतारों आणिही पोई दिक- ह- । চিছলি ? সুলী " রু" কাশসাধ ইজ ছিঁজি গোস और केंद्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न मनुसूची में वर्शित 419.77 हेक्टर(लगभग ) या 1037. 25 एकड़(लगभग ) मापवाली भूमि में खनिजों के खनन, खदान, बोर करने उनकी खुदाई करने और खनिजों की ता तलाश करने , उन्हें प्राप्त करने , उन पर कार्य करने , और उन्हें ले जाने के अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिएका अतः अब , केंद्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोगात्रशा करते हुए, यह शोधणा करती है कि इससे सलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित्र 419.77 हेक्टर लिगामा (लगभग) मापवाली भूमि में खनिजों के खनन, खदान पार करने उनकी खुदाई करने और खनिजों को तलाश करने, उन्हें प्राप्त करने, उन पर कार्य करने , उन्हें ले जनि के अधिकारअर्जित किए जाते हैं । 10

= 18.850.00 € । কা + নগালক) এটি দিক্ इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने हाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं . एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम /पीएलजी/भूमि/299 तारीख 6 जून 2005 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, सरगुजा( छत्तीसगढ़) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1, काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट कोलकाता के कार्यालय मेंमें या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स बिलासपुर 495006(छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

-U- F

प्रगान छ

बोली पी. एस पुल डब्ल्यू भूमिगत प्रोजेक्ट मगर

मदगांव क्षेत्र, जिला-सरगुजा

ब्लाक - 1

खनन अधिकार,

राजस्व वन

क्र.सं. ग्राम का नाम ग्राम संख्या तहसील

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में ट्रिप्पण

15.43

भाग

सरगुजा

1 कल्यानपुर

सूरजपुर

पंन००८-०६-

आरक्षित

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

क्र.सं. कन्फर्टमेन्ट संख्या रेंज

डिवीजन

टिप्पण

2549

102.76

भाग

दक्षिण सरगुजा

अम्बिकापुर

2572

206.18

भाग

दक्षिण सरगुजा

अम्बिकापुर

2573

066.56

भाग

दक्षिण सरगुजा

अम्बिकापुर

ब्लाक 1 योगः- 390.93 हेक्टर 6418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ] (1) ग्राम कल्यानपुर ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जानेवाले राजस्व वनभूमि प्लाट संख्यांकः 2200,2380 (भाग) ,2393(भाग), 2394 से 2403,2404 (भाग) , 2405 से 2410,2411 (भाग), 2423 (भाग) ,

(2) आरक्षित वन ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जानेवाले कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्यांकः- 2549 (भाग ) , 2572 ( भाग), 2573 (भाग) .

सीमा वर्णन

क-ख रेखा, कल्यानपुर ग्राम में "क " बिंदु से प्रारंभ होती है और राजस्व वन प्लाट संख्या 2380,2393 , 2404, 2411,2423 से बाद में आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्या 2549 से होती हुई बिन्दु "ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख - ग-घ रेखा आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्या 2549,2572,2573 से होती हुई बिन्दु "घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ -ड. -क रेखा आरक्षित वन कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्या 2573 से होते हुए जाती है तत्पश्चात् सड़क की पश्चिमी सीमा के साथ होती हुई आरभिंक "क " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

अनुसूची निरन्तर ...

ब्लाक - 11

खनन अधिकार आरक्षित वन

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में टिप्पण

डिवीजन

क्रम संख्या कम्पार्टमेन्ट नम्बर रेंज

28.84

भाग

2573

दक्षिण सरगुजा

अम्बिकापुर

28.84

हेक्टर

ब्लाक -

योगः

419.77 हेक्टर ( लगभग)

कुल योगः (ब्लाक + ब्लाक 11)390.93 +28.84 =

या 1037.25 एकड़ (लगभग)

(1) आरक्षित वन ( भाग ) में अर्जित की गई (भाग ) कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्याः 2573 ( भाग) .

सीमा वर्णन

च-छ-

रेखा कल्यानपुर ग्राम और वन कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्या 2573 की सम्मिलित

ज-झ

सीमा पर " च " बिंदु से आरंभ होती है और उसी कम्पार्टमेन्ट से होती हुई बिन्दु " झ " पर मिलती है ।

झ-च

रेखा कल्यानपुर ग्राम और वन कम्पार्टमेन्ट संख्या 2573 की भागतः सम्मिलीत सीमा से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु "च " पर मिलती है ।

[सं. -43015/14/2003- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव 6419 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Ministry of Coal

NewDelhi , the 17th July, 2006

S. O. 2800.-Whereas by the notification of the Govern number S.O. 624 dated the 17th February , 2005 , issued und lia in the Ministry of Coal , tion ( 1 ) of section 7 of the CoalBearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 19570 of 1957) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in Part - II , Section 3 , sub - section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India dated the 26th February , 2005 the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the rights to mine, quarry , bore , dig and search for , win work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 419.77 hectares (approximately ) or 1037.25 acres ( approximately) in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And, whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act , has made his report to the Central Government;

And, whereas , the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government of Chhattisgarh , is satisfied that the rights to mine quarry, bore , dig and search for , win work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 419.77 hectares (approximately) or 1037.25 acres (approximately ) described in the Schedule appended hereto ; should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the sub - section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the rights to mine, quarry, bore , dig and search for , win, work and carry away minerals in the lands measuring 419.77 hectares (approximately) or 1037.25 acres ( approximately ) , described in the Schedule appended hereto are hereby acquired .

The plan bearing No : SECL/ BSP / GM ( Plg )/ Land/ 299 dated the 6th June 2005 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector , Surguja ( Chhattisgarh ) or in the Office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council Housest , Kolkata 700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited ( Revenu a), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 ( Chhattisgarh ) .

SCHED

Badauli PSLW Underground Project Bhatgaon Area . District Surguja, ( Chhattisgarh )

BLOCK - 1

Mining Rights

Revenue Forest

Tahsil

Remarks

Distict

Village number

Serial number

Name of village

Area (in hectares)

Part

15.43

Surguja

Surajpur

Kalyanpur 6420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

Reserved Forest

Ranges yiul

[ PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii) )

Remarks

Division wan

Compartment number

Serial number

2549

Ambikapur Area (in hectares)

102.76 Part

South Surguja

206.18 Part

South Surguja

2573

066.56 part

South Surguja

Ambikapur Total :

mocTotal

1 στίωρος οι ποϋποιni ti to soiton

390.93 hectares

Dilsool shi ni ( stemizona ) oтов 2001, το Zisinizomea 1

) Revenue forest plot numbers acquired in villagein village Kalyanpur [ part ] : 2200 , 2380 ( part ) , 2393 (part), 2394 to 2403 , 2404 (part ) , 2405 to 2410 , 2411 ( part ) , 2423 ( part] .

2) Reserved forest compartment numbers acquired ( part ) .

2549 (part ) , 2572 ( part ) , 2573 (part).

Tofte bas noqon biserole edt gпітовігноо тоо yib stod Boundary Descriptions ris vultuse ar dressinado

A- BLine starts from point "A" in village Kalyanpur and passes through Revenue Forest plot numbers 2380 , 2393 , 2404, 2411 , 2423 then through reserved forest compartment number 2549 and meets at point "B " .

BC -D Line passes through Reserved Forest compartment numbers 2549, 2572 , 2573 , and meets obstod babesgqa olubado ? ali ni berdine D-E-A Line passes through Reserved Forest compartment number 2573 then along the western boundary of Road and meets at the starting point " A" .

Schedule Continue

BLOCK - II

Mining Rights

Reserved Forest

Division

Range

Compartment number

Serial number

2573

Ambikapur

Remarks Area ( in hectares )

Part

28.84

South Surguja

Block- II 28.84

Total:

hectares

Grand total : [ Block- 1 + Block -II ] 390.93 + 28.84 = 419.77 hectares (approximately ) or 1037.25 acres (approximately) Reserved Forest compartment number to be acquired (part) .

(1)

2573 (part).

Boundary Description . - F -G - H - I Line starts from point "F " on the common boundary of village Kalyanpur and forest compartment number 2573 and passes through same compartment and meets at point " I " .

6421 [भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/ अषाढ़ 31 , 1928

I-F Line passes along the partly common of village Kalyanpur and forest compartment number 2573 and meets at the starting point " F".

[No. 43015/14/2003 - PRIW] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2006

का. आ. 2801.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम, 1957 (1957 का 20) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का. आ. 3591 , तारीख 30 सितम्बर, 2005 जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग 2, खंड़ 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 8 अक्टूबर, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि और उस पर के समस्त अधिकारों के अर्जन करने के आशय की सूचना दी थी;

दे दी है ; और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट और केन्द्रीय सरकार का, पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और महाराष्ट्र सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है, कि अनुसूची में वर्णित 340.73 हेक्टर (लगभग) या 841.94 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि और अर्जित ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के समस्त अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिए;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है, कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित 340.73 हेक्टर ( लगभग) या 841.94 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि और अर्जित ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. सी.। (ई) / III/ एफआर/ 744-0206 तारीख 18 फरवरी, 2006 का निरीक्षण कलक्टर, नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता (पिन- 700 001 ) के कार्यालय में या वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड (राजस्व विभाग) , कोल एस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर 440 001 (महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

नया सिंगोरी खंड़, नागपुर क्षेत्र

जिला नागपुर (महाराष्ट्र)

(रखांक सं.सीं - 1 (ई) ।।। /एफआर/744-0206 तारीख 18 फरवरी , 2006)

टिप्पणी

जिला..

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पटवारी सर्किल संख्या

क्रम संख्या

41.20

भाग

पारसिवनी

डोरली

नागपुर

125.45

भाग

पारसिवनी

साहोली

नागपुर

174.08

भाग

पारसिवनी

सिंगोरी

नागपुर

340.73 हेक्टर (लगभग )

कुल क्षेत्रः-

या

841.94 एकड़ (लगभग) 2057 GI /2006-18 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] .

6422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

ग्राम डोरली में अर्जित किये गये प्लॉट संख्यांकः

97, 98, 99/1-99/ 2 , 100 , 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105, 106 , 107 , 108 , 109, 110 , 111 , 112, 113/1113/2 , 114, 115, 118, 119, नाला ( भाग) ।

ग्राम साहोली में अर्जित किये गये प्लॉट संख्यांकः

3/1-3/2 , 4/1-4 / 2 , 7 , 8 /1-8 /2- 8/3- 8/4-8/5-8/ 6, 11 , 12 , 13, 14/1-14/ 2( भाग) , 44/1- 44/2-44/3-44/4, 46 , 47/1-47/ 2, 48, 49 , 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54/154/2 , 55, 56 , 57, 58 , 63, 64, 65/1-65/ 2, 66/1-66/2- 66/3 , 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72, 73 , 74, 75, 76 , 77/1- 77/2, 78 , 79, 80 , 81 , 82/1-82/ 2 , 83/1-83/2- 83/3 , 83/4 , 84/1-84/2- 84/3 , 85 , 86/1- 86/2, 87/1- 87/2; 88, 89, 90/1- 90/ 2- 90/3 , 91 , 92, 93/1- 93/2(भाग) , 96 , 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102 , 103 (भाग) , सड़क (भाग) ।

ग्राम सिंगोरी में अर्जित किये गये प्लॉट संख्यांकः

59/1- 59/2 (भाग) , 60/160/2- 60/3 (भाग) , 66/1 66/2(भाग) , 67, 68/1- 68/2- 68/3 (भाग) , 71 (भाग) , 72, 73 नाला (भाग) , 77 (भाग ) , 78 (भाग) , 79/1- 79/2 (भाग) , 80(भाग) , 81 (भाग) , 82 (भाग) , 83(भाग) , 84/1-84/2, 85, 86, 87 (नाला) , 88, 91 (नाला) , 93/1- 93/2, 95/195/2- 95/3 (भाग ) , 96, 97/1- 97/2 , 98, 99, 103 सड़क (भाग ) , 104 सड़क (भाग) , 105/1- 105/2, 106 , 107/1- 107/ 2- 107/3 , 108 , 109, 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115 , 116 , 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125, 126, 127 , 128, 129 , 130, 131 , 132, 133 (नाला) , 134/1-134/2, 135 (नाला) , 136, 137, 138 , 139 , 140 (नाला) , 141 , 142, 143, 144, 145 , 146 , 147/1- 147/2 , 148/1- 148/2- 148/3, 149, 150, 151 , 153, 158, 159/1-159/ 2 , 160 , 161 /1- 161/2 , 162/1- 162/2- 162/3 , 163, 164. सड़क ( भाग ) , 167, 168, 169, 170, 171 सड़क ( भाग) , 172/1- 172/ 2- 172/3 (भाग) , 173 , 174, 175, 176 , 177, 178 /1- 178/ 2- 178/3 , 179, 180, 181 , 182, 183 , 184 |

सीमा वर्णनः

क खः

रेखा बिन्दु " क " से आरम्भ होती है और ग्राम सिंगोरी के प्लॉट संख्या 59/1- 59/2 , 60/1 - 60/2- 60/3 , 66/1-66/2 , 68 /1- 68/2- 68/3, 71 में से गुजरती हुई नाला पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 77, 78, 79/1-79/ 2 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 मे से आगे बढ़ती है और ग्राम सिंगोरी और हिंगणा ( बाराभाई) की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु "ख" पर मिलती है ।

ख - गः

रेखा ग्राम सिंगोरी से होकर ग्राम सिंगोरी और हिंगणा (बाराभाई) की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 83 , 85, 86, की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई ग्राम सिंगोरी, हिंगणा (बाराभाई) तथा डोरली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " ग" पर मिलती है ।

1 6423 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31, 1928

ग - घः

रेखा ग्राम सिंगोरी से होकर ग्राम सिंगोरी और डोरली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 134/1- 134/2 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई ग्राम सिंगोरी तथा डोरली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती है और ग्राम डोरली से होती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 111 , 119, 118, 115, 97 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ - ड.ः रेखा ग्राम डोरली से होकर प्लॉट संख्यांक 97, 98 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और ग्राम डोरली और साहोली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु "ड. " पर मिलती है ।

ड. - चः रेखा ग्राम साहोली से होकर प्लॉट संख्यांक 102, 97, 96, 93/1- 93/2(भाग) , 86/1-86/ 2 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 63 , 64, 46, 58, 57 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ- साथ जाती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक44/1-44/2-44/3-44/4 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ जाती है और बिन्दु "च" पर मिलती है ।

च - छः रेखा ग्राम साहोली से होकर प्लॉट संख्यांक14/1- 14/2( भाग) , में से जाती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 11 , 7, 4/1-4/2, 3/1-3/2, की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और ग्राम साहोली और सिंगोरी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु "छ" पर मिलती है ।

छ-ज-झ-कः रेखा ग्राम सिंगोरी से होकर प्लॉट संख्यांक 181 , 179, 182, 183, 184, 172/1 172/2- 172/3 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्या 167 की बाहरी सीमा के साथ जाती है और फिर से सड़क पार करती है तथा प्लॉट संख्यांक 158, 159/1- 159/2, 153 , 150, 103, 105/1- 105/2की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई सड़क पार करती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 95/1-95/2- 95/3 में से आगे बढ़ती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 93/1- 93/2 , 91 , 59/1- 59/2की बाहरी सीमा के साथ जाती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु "क " पर मिलती है ।

[सं.-43015/27/2004- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू] एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव 6424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006 /ASADHA 31 , 1928

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2006

S. O. 2801. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal No. S.O. 3591 dated the 30th September , 2005 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 ( 20 of 1957) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part - II , Section 3 , Sub - Section (ii ) , dated the 8th October , 2005, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire the lands and all rights in the locality specified in the Schedule appended to that notification ;

And whereas the competent authority in pursuance of section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central Government ;

And whereas the Central Government after considering the report aforesaid and after consulting the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that the lands measuring 340.73 hectares (approximately) or 841.94 acres (approximately) and All Rights in or over such lands as described in the Schedule appended hereto should be acquired ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the land measuring 340.73 hectares (approximately) or 841.94 acres (approximately) and all rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired;

The plan bearing number C - I (E ) III /FR/ 744-0206 dated the 18th February , 2006 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata , (Pin 700 001 ) or in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Department ) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440 001 (Maharashtra) .

Schedule

New Singori Block , Nagpur Area

District Nagpur ( Maharashtra)

( Plan No. C - 1 ( E ) III /FR/ 744-0206 dated the 18th February , 2006 ).

Remarks

Tahsil District Area in hectares

Serial Number

Name of village

Patwari circle number

41.20

Part

Dorli

12 Parseoni Nagpur

125.45

Part

Saholi

12 Parseoni Nagpur

Part

174.08

Parseoni

3 Singori

Nagpur

Total area : 340.73 hectare ( approximately)

or 841.94 acres ( approximately) Plot numbers acquired in village Dorli :

97, 98 , 99/1-99/2 , 100 , 101 , 102, 103 , 104, 105 , 106, 107, 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112 , 113 / 1-113 /2 , 114, 115 , 118 , 119 , Nallah ( part ) .

Plot numbers acquired in village Saholi :

3/1-3/2 , 4/1-4/2 , 7 , 8/1-8/2-8/3-8/4-8/5-8/6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14/ 1-14/2 (part ), 44/1-44/2-44/3-44/4 , 46, 47/1- 47/2 , 48 , 49 , 50, 51 , 52, 53 , 54/ 1-54/2 , 55 , 56, 57 , 58 , 63 , 64 , 65 / 1-65 /2 , 66/1-66/ 2- 66/3 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70, 71 , 72, 73 , 74 , 75 , 76, 77/1-77/2 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82/1-82/2 , 83/1-83/2-83/3- 83/4 , 84/1-84/2-84/3 , 85 , 86/1-86/2 , 87/ 1-87 /2 , 88 , 89 , 90/1-90/2- 90/3 , 91 , 92 , 93/ 1-93/2 (part ) , 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 , 102, 103 (part), Road (part) .

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6425

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/अषाढ़ 31, 1928

Plot numbers acquired in village Singori :

59/1-59/2 (part ) , 60/ 1-60/2-60/3 (part ) , 66/ 1-66/2 (part ) , 67 , 68/ 1-68/2-68/3 ( part) , 71 (part) , 72, 73 Nallah (part) , 77 (part ), 78 (part ), 79/ 1-79/2 (part ) , 80 (part) , 81 (part ) , 82 (part) , 83 (part ) , 84/ 1- 84/2 , 85 , 86 , 87 (Nallah ) , 88 , 91 (Nallah) , 93/ 1-93/2, 95/1-95/2-95/3 (part), 96 , 97/ 1-97/2, 98 , 99 , 103 Road (part) , 104 Road (part ) , 105/1-105/2 , 106, 107/1-107/2-107/3 , 108 , 109 , 110, 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 115 , 116, 117, 118 , 119, 120, 121 , 122, 123 , 124, 125 , 126, 127, 128 , 129, 130, 131 , 132 , 133 (Nallah) , 134/1-134/2 , 135 (Nallah), 136, 137 , 138 , 139, 140 (Nallah) , 141 , 142, 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147/1-147/2 , 148/1-148/2-148/3 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 153 , 158 , 159/1-159/2 , 160 , 161/1- 161/2 , 162/1-162/2-162/3 , 163 , 164 Road (part) , 167, 168, 169 , 170, 171 Road (part), 172/1- 172/2-172/3 (part) , 173, 174, 175 , 176 , 177, 178/1-178/2-178/3 , 179 , 180, 181 , 182 , 183 , 184 .

Boundary description

A- B : Line starts from point ' A' and passes through village Singori and proceeds through plot numbers 59/1-59/2, 60/1-60/2- 60/3 , 66/1-66/2, 68/1-68/2-68/ 3 , 71 crosses nallah then proceeds through plot numbers 77 , 78 , 79/1-79/2 , 80, 81 , 82, 83 and meets on common village boundary of villages Singori and Hingna (Barabhai ) at point ' B ' .

B - C :

Line passes through village Singori along with the common village boundary of villages Singori and Hingna (Barabhai ) along the outer boundary of plot numbers 83 , 85 , 86 of village Singori and meets on common village boundary of villages Singori , Hingna (Barabhari ) and Dorli at point ' C' .

C- D:

Line passes through village Singori along the common village boundary of. villages Singori and Dorli and the outer boundary of plot numbers 134/1-134/2 then crosses village boundary and passes through village Dorli along the outer boundary of plot numbers 111, 119, 118 , 115 , 97 and meets at point ' D ' .

D - E :

Line passes through village Dorli along the outer boundary of plot numbers 97, 98 and meets on common village boundary of villages Dorli and Saholi at point ' E ' .

E - F :

Line passes through village Saholi along the outer boundary of plot numbers 102 , 97 , 96, 93 /1-93/ 2 , 86/1-86/2 crosses road then proceeds along the outer boundary of plot numbers 63 , 64, 46, 58 , 57 again crosses road then proceeds along the outer boundary of plot numbers 44/1-44/2-44/3-44/4 and meets at point ' F ' .

F -G:

Line passes through village Saholi and plot numbers 14/ 1-14/2 then proceeds along the outer boundary of plot numbers 11 , 7 , 4/1-4/2 , 3/ 1-3/2 and meets on common village boundary of villages Saholi and Singori at point ' G' .

G-H- I -A : Line passes through village Singori along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 181 , 179 , 182 , 183 , 184 , 172/1-172/2 172/3 crosses road then proceeds along the outer boundary of plot number 167 again crosses road then passes along the outer boundary of plot numbers 158 , 159/1-159/2, 153 , 150, 151 , 103 , 105/ 1-105/2 crosses road then passes through plot numbers 95/ 1-95/2- 95/3 and outer boundary of plot numbers 93 / 1-93/ 2 , 91 , 59/ 1-59/2 and meets at starting point 'A ' .

[No. 43015/27/2004- PRIW] M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

6426

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

AWARD

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 26 जून , 2006

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section ( I ) and sub -section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No.L-22012/224/2001 - IR(C- II) , dated 6-9-2002 :-

का.आ. 2802.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the Management of Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd. , UCE Burla, Dist . Sambalpur in terminating the services of Shri Binayak Prasad Purohit , Cat. - I Mazdoor from the year 1992 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

[सं. एल-22012/224/2001- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 26th June , 2006

2. After receipt of the letter of reference from the Government the workman filed his statement of claim which is found to be more criptic and unspecific to make out his real problems . However from his evidence and documents produced the following story emerges .

S.O. 2802. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No. 75/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Mahanadi CoalFields Ltd. , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 23-6-2006.

[No. L- 22012/224/2001 -IR(C - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUD , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum -Labour Court , Bhubaneshwar.

The workman joined the service as an I.T.Ι. Apprentice Cat. - I in 1987 under the earst while Management of South East Coal Field Limited. He was subjected to in- service training and for this he was posted in Belpahar sub -Area in 1998. Few months later he applied for his transfer and accordingly he was posted in Hirakud Bundia Incline Mine of Rampur sub -Area in may 1989 about one month later he gain applied for his leave on health ground vide Ext . -13 stating that his health does not permit himto do the assigned duty. Then he applied for his further transfer and the Management in consideration of the same transferred him vide order dated 5-7-1990 ( Ext . - 10 ) to Samaleswari Open Cast Project . The workman joined there on 10-7-1990 and continued for sometime as general Mazdoor , Cat- II . But from 28-11-1991 he did notjoin in his duties continuously. According to him before availing leave he had applied for the same which the management has denied.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 75/2002 Date of Passing Award-5th June 2006

BETWEEN :

The Management of the Director Personnel , Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. ,

UCE Burla , P.O. , Burla Sambalpur.

Ist Party -Managements

AND

Their Workman Shri Binayak Prasad Purohit, At. Bhatra P.O. Dhanupali, Sambalpur.

2nd Party-Workman .

APPEARANCES :

Shri Rabindra Kr.

Rout.

For the 1st Party-

Management .

Shri Binayak

Prasad Purohit

3. According to the management the workman. remained unauthorizedly absent duties with effect from 28-11-1991 till a departmental proceeding was started in the year 1994. During pendency of the proceeding he was evenofffered with an opportunity tojoin in his duties within 10days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 9-5-1995 (Ext. -E) but in reply thereto he levied a condition to join if he isposted in the office instead against his technical post . He also did riot attend the departmental proceeding despite being noticed repeatedly. To ensure his presence in the said proceeding he was issued with repreated registered letters at different stages of proceeding but these letters had returned undelivered with a report that he was not available in his earlier sent home address . As a result he was set ex-parte in the proceeding after a paper publication and after observing due formalities from prescribed under the Standing Order was ultimately dismissed from service vide Leter No. 309. dated 15-5-1997 of the Management . In other words, keeping in view the terms of reference . it is ForHimself- 2nd Party-Workman.

6427 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

alleged by the management that the workman was never refused employment or terminated in 1992 as alleged in the terms of reference . As the letter of reference is silent about the exact date of such refusal/termination it is further averred by the management that the reference is not maintainable under law and as such the workman is not entitled for any reliefeither way.

4. On the basis of above pleadings and counter pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

2. Whether the action of the management of Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited UCE Burla, Dist. Sambalpur in terminating the services of Shri Binayak Prasad Purohit, Cat . I Mazdoor from the year 1992 is legal and justified?

3. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?

5. During trial the workman besides examining himself as the sole witness has also produced several documents marked as Ex- 1 to 32. From the side of the Management a Senior Personnel Officer who had enquired the departmental proceeding and another officer whowas appointed as the Marshalling Officer have been examined anddocuments marked as Ext. -A to T have been marked.

ISSUE NO - I & II

6. These issues are taken up together as they are inter-linked.

(Ext. -21) for leave, it can not be believed that he had remained absent after applying for leave .A reference to hisanother letter marked Ext . 31 which he had sent to the Management in response to management's letter dated 18-10-1995 gives à clear indication that, he had remained absent without leave from 28-11-1991 as claimed by the management .Be it noted that while making several prayer the workman has alleged that his services has been terminatedby the management from the year 1992. But his documents marked Ext. - 18, 19 , 20 show that during 1992-93 hewas in correspondence with the management in regard todisbursement of his salary and for sending necessary records to the Central hospital in connection with his further treatment. Similarly Ext . -E marked on behalfofthe management, the receipt ofwhich has been acknowledged by the workman in his letter marked Ext . 31 , shows that during pendency of the enquiry proceeding initiated in the year 1994 the Management had sent another letter on 9-8-1995 vide Ext. - E asking the workman to join in his duty within 10 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. Ext . F shows that in reply to the said letter the workmanhad entered into abargain with the management saying that he will not join in any technical post unless he isposted in the office. This clearly indicates that the workmanwas never terminated during the year 1992 and as such he is not entitled for any relief arising out of such alleged termination. It be further noted here that the law is well settled that the terms of reference must be more specific about the date of termination and in absence of the same the reference would be bad under law. As the letter of reference does not contain any such date of alleged termination the reference itself is also otherwise found to be bad and not maintainable .

ISSUENO III

8. In view of the discussions made above the workman is not entitled either way to get any relief.

The law is very much settled that the Tribunal can nottravel beyond the terms ofreference. Therefore , looking at the terms of reference it is only to be seen whether the workman was ever terminated/refused employment from theyear 1992.

9. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated &Correctedby me .

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer :

नई दिल्ली, 26 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2803,-औद्योगिक अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ई वी ए एअर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 115/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-06-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-11012/ 133/700- आई आर (सी-1) ] एस. एगुप्ता, अवर सचिव 7. It is claimedby the workman that he had remained absent from duty from 28-11-1991 after applying for necessary leave, but the same was never consideredby the Management . To substantiate the above stand the workman has produced a copy ofhis said leave application dated 24-11-91 marked Ext. -21 . But on perusal of the same it is gathered that the same does not bear any endorsement of the Management in support of the fact that it was delievered to him . On the other hand no postal acknowledgement has been produced by the workmanto justify that the same was sent to the Management bypost. Contraryto allthese the workman during cross examination claims that he had remained absent from duty from 24-11- 1991 whereas in his claim statement he has claimed to have had remained on leave from 1-12-1991 , all justifying that the workman himself is not sure of the date from which he remained absent. As he has failed to aduce sužicient evidence to establish that he had sent an application 6428

New Delhi , the 26th June, 2006

S. O. 2803.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 115/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai - II, now as shown in the Annexure, inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation tothemanagement of M/ s . EVA AIR and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on 26-06- 2006.

[No. L- 11012/138/2000- IR(C-I) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2/ 115 OF 2001 Employers in relation to the Management of M/ S. EVA AIR

The Station Manager,

M/ S. EVA AIR,

405,4thfloor, Rangoli Complex,

Opp.Air Cargo Complex, Sahar Road, Andheri (East),

MUMBAI -400099,

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Joseph Basil Rebello ,

B/9, Sahjeevan Co -op . Housing Society Ltd. , NearArman Society, Vakola, Santacruz. (E) , MUMBAI -400 055.

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Employer : Mr. D. A. Athavale , Advocate

For the Workman : Mr. S.I. Kazi & Ms. S.K. Kazi , Advocates .

Date of reserving Award : 27th April , 2006 .

Dateofpassing ofAward: 17th May, 2006.

AWARD

The Under Secretary to the Government of India (Bharat Sarkar) , Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi, referred

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

the dispute to this Tribunal regarding Mr. Joseph B. Rebellow inviting remarks of this Tribunal to state:

"Whether the action of the management of EVA Air, Mumbai in terminating the services of Mr. Rebellow Joseph Basil with effect from 1-12-1999 is legal and justified? If not to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "

2. The said dispute is referred under Section 14 and Section 10 (1) (g ) and Section 2(A) ofSection 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inviting findings of this Tribunal regarding termination effected on Mr. Rebellow Joseph .

3.To challenge the termination , under the reference , dated 1st December, 1999 and to claim that , it is not justifiable as well as not legal 2nd Party made out the case that, he was terminated without following due process of law.Accordingto him he joined as a Cargo Operation Officer with effect from 25th November, 1998 and worked there till 1st December , 1999. Though he was designated as a Cargo Operation Officer he was performing duties of clerical category.Hewas attending work of typing , filing , answering queries about import discrepancy or tracing cargo . He was coordinating in cargo handling activities handled by combatta staff. He was preparing document , arranging clearance of cargo , receiving orders of the superiors as well as purchasing stationary, stocking tea, powder sugar, milk, as per the requirements , looking after flight requirements and feeding information, arranging for meals, fuels and makeup call for crew member and also informing. AirIndia Security about arrival. Which he claims that , he was neither having supervisory or managerial powers and he was working under the guidance of his superiors . His duties were falling purely under Section 2(s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to call him as a 'Workman' At the time of termination of his employment by notice dated 30th November, 1999 , no legal dues were offered . Even one month's notice was not given, nor salary of one month in lieu ofthe notice was offered . His legal dues were not paid. The termination was effected illegally and without following due process of law. The reason given was not satisfactory. So he prayed that, he be reinstated with benefits of back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1st December, 1999.

4.To dispute the claim First Party filed reply at Exhibit 9stating that, 2nd Party is not the workman and does not fall under definition of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to call him as a " Workman " and attract the protection available to the workman. He was appointed as CargoOperation Officer. It is denied that , he was appointed by the First Party as a Cargo Operation Officer since 25-11-1998 and it is denied that, he was illegally terminated by letter dated 30th November , 1999. It is the case of the First Party that, 2nd Party was appointed on probation for aperiod of six months with effect from 1-8-1999 and not from 25-11-1998 as alleged by him. According to First Party 6429 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928.

hisduties ,were of clerical category and he was doing typing and filing . He was handling routine correspondence , coordinatingactivities handled by combatta staff, preparing documents of cargo, attending telephone , arranging stationary for the office purpose and arranging for meals, fuels and make up call for crew member and also informing AirIndia security about arrival . The entire nature ofwork of 2nd Party Workman were purely of ' workman ' and as such he cannot come out from definition of ' workman' .

7. So let us see the definition of , ' Workman ' given under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as follows:

" 2(s) " workman " means any person ( including and apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as, a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute , but does not include any such person-

appointment order dated 5-11-1998 was issued by Greenways Air & Travel Ltd. and not by First party, Company. According to it said Greenways Air and Travel Limited is the General Sales Agency which is an Indian Company while Eva Airways Corporation i.e. First Party Corporation is a foreign company based in Taipei , Taiwan. Since said 2 companies are independent from each other and have no relation with each other , 2nd party cannot claim any relation with First Party as result of appointment dated 25-11-1998 . 2nd party has suppressed the fact of resignation given by him dated 30th June, 1998, It is denied that, First Party terminated 2nd Party Workman without following due process of law. In fact he was appointed on probation as his work was not found satisfactory, he was terminated by letter dated 30th November, 1999. Though one month's salary was offered to him by this letter , however, he did not accept those just to create dispute and seek favour of the Tribunal . Since his work was not satisfactory and since was appointed on probation for a period of six months , it is not necessary to have enquiry and give opportunity to him before terminating him from the employment . They denied that, he is entitled to reinstatement and back wages and continuity of service. So First Party submit that, Reference sent , of the 2nd Party, be rejected.

In view of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 13 which I answer as follows:

(i ) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950) , or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) , or the NavyAct , 1957 (62 of 1957) ; or

Issues

Finding

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

( iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

1. Whether management proves that Mr. Rebellow Joseph Basil is not a ' workman ' within the Definition of Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore the reference is not maintainable ?

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exèrcises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.) "

2. Whether the action of the management ofEVA Air , Mumbai terminating the services of Mr. Rebello JosephBasil with effect from 1-12-1999 is legal and justified?

3. What relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

As per orderbelow

REASONS:

Issue No.1:

8. As per definition given under Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , ' Workman' means any person (including and apprentice) working in any Industry and doing manual , unskilled skilled technical , operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward. So the various categories of work or duties given in he difinition oftheWorkman under Section 2 (s ) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 including nature of work done by such an employee ofsupervisory nature or operational and clerical type are also treated as duties of and employee doing those is also called as a ' workman ' In the definition there is some exclusion of duties from the definition of workman regarding employee working in Police, services or working as Officer or who are working in managerial and administrative capacity or who are doing or employed in the supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding Rs . One thousand six hundred per mensem or their functions must be mainly ofmanagerial nature .

6. 1st Party made out the case that , 2nd Party Mr. Rebello Basil Joseph is not a ' Workman ' and does not fallunder category of ' Workman ' as defined under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whereas case made out by the 2nd Party ' Workman ' is that he fully fall under the definition of Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. Though he is designated as, ' Cargo Operation Officer ' the predominant nature of 6430

9.Here the salary given of the Workman, definitely exceeds the salary given in definition as his salary is Rs . 10,500 per month which is projected in his Statement of Claim filed at Exhibit 5. As far as his salary is concerned the definition of ' workman ' does not attract to his job . But one has to consider said amount was of the time of preparationofthe draft of ' workman ' . Now there is much change and increase in cost which is considered while offering salary. However, though duties done by him which areofpredominant nature , are of clerical category and since hework as a Cargo Operation Officer. When he work as a CargoOperation,Officer and doing clerical work also, simple question arises whether such an employee can be called as aWorkman or as an Officer? Here as far as his duties given byhim inhis Statement of Claim, in para 3 are concern, are not disputed by the 1st Party. It is not the case of the 1st Party that, 2nd Party is not doing typing filing , doing routine correspondence and answering queries , preparing the documents of cargo , attending telephone , purchasing stationary for the office purpose and arranging for meals , looking after flight requirements and feeding information arranging for meals, fuels and make up call for crew member and also informing Air India security about arrival. So all those duties claimed by the 2nd Party Workman are not disputedby the First Party. If we read those as it is, we find those are ofpredominant nature and most are of clerical category.

10. Besides , it is not the case of the First Party that, he istaking part in the decision making policy. It is not the case of the 1st Party that, he has some power to take decision. It is not the case of the 1st Party that, number of staff isworkingunder him and he is controlling or regulating them as per his own plans which is binding on the 1st Party. It is not the case of the 1st party that, he can recruit any employee or dismiss any of them . Even it is not the caseofthe 1st Party that, he can write Confidential Report and on his Confidential Report decision is taken into considerationby the employer regarding the employment ofthe Workman working under him. Simply he is a Cargo Operator who has to decide which cargos are to be sentby which flight and in my considered view that , decision making power to send cargo by a particular flight is not that much important as far as business activities or policy matter of status of the 1st Party is concerned . Employee , who is an officer, definitely have much power who is consulted by the policy taking body. Such an employee must have that much importance without whom any decision cannot be taken by the employer. In the instant case no specific case is made out by the First Party, employer, to show that, 2nd Party Workman is playing that much role and he is helping in taking decision or his decisions are binding as far as decision of the 1st Party is concerned and that cannot be ignored . When that, is not there , and when 2nd Party employee is not concerned regarding policy making by the employment in that,

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

category and merely because he is getting salary of Rs. 10,500 and plus and where he is called as a Cargo OperationOfficer, in my considered view. He is not more thana Clerk and not doing any other important and valuable work than clerical work just to clear up the cargo from the storage store ofthe First Party and sends it to the addressee or the owner of it . So , status , work attended by 2nd Party and duties allotted to him on which he was appointed, does not bring him out of the definition of the workman under Section 2 (s) of Industrial Act , 1947. So I conclude that2nd Party is a Workman.

ISSUE NO . 2

11. Second Party made out a case that, he was terminated by an order dated 30-11-1999 by giving immediate effect to it. According him one month's notice was not given. No enquiry was conducted. Charge sheet was not served . No reason was given as to why he was terminated.According to him he completed his probation satisfactorily and without any reason he was terminated. Whereas case of the First party is that, he was appointed onprobation and since his probation came to an end he was terminated. Since his work was found unsatisfactory during the probation , no question arises to issue charge sheet and give notice. Actually salary of one month was given in lieu of notice . Even it is mentioned in the termination order. However, 2nd Party did not accept it to facilitate him to harass the 1st Party. Besides he was not employee of the EVA Airways Corporation right from 25-11-1998. He was appointed by EVA Airways Corporation i.e. by 1st Party by letter dated 1-8-1999 and not from 25-11-1998 as claimed by 2nd Party Workman. Even EVA Airways Corporation . 1st Party, and Greenways Air and Travel Ltd. are two different entity. Greenways Air and Travel Ltd. is Indian company whereas EVA Airways Corporation is of Taiwan nation . According to 2nd Party workman Green Air and Travel Agency and EVA Airways Corporation are the sister companies . They are related with each other and are controlled by each other. They are one and the same . Even 1st Party referred to the services done by the 2nd Party Workman in its appointment and then gave appointment order dated 1st August, 1999 just to harass him and deprive from legal claim the 1st Party is claiming different entity with Green Air and Travel Agency.

12. To support that 2nd Party examined himself at Exhibit 17 by way of affidavit and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 18 whereas 1st Party examined Ranjan J. Sirkar at Exhibit 20 and in the form of affidavit in lieu of examination inchief filed closing purshis at Exhibit 22. In the cross 2nd PartyWorkman admits that, appointment letter dated 25th November, 1998 (Exhibit - A) was given by Green Air and Travel Limited which is different than EVA Airways Corporation . He also admits that , EVA is incorporated in Taiwan whereas Green Air and Travel Limited is Indian Company.He admits that , appointment letter Exhibit A was 6431 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ÖAŇजुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

issuedby EVA Airways Corporation . Whereas First Party's witness in the cross admits that, 2nd Party was paid by EVA Airways Corporation and was reporting to Air Port Manager and was responsible for the loading and unlaoding ofcargo in the Air lines.

13. Ifwe peruse the documents like appointment letter dated 25-11-1998 filed at Exhibit " A" , we find on letter- head name of EVA Airways Corporation and as well as GreenAir and Travel Limited, is printed. Then letter dated 1st August, 1999 (Exhibit B) is on letter-head of EVA Airwaysreferring the previous service mention as follows:

14. Pausing for a moment, as per the case of the 1st Party, 2nd Party was on probation when he was terminated on that, number of citations are referred by the 2nd Party Workman to show that the termination is not legal. The citation published in 2002(4) L.L.N. page 382, in which Madras High Court while deciding the case of P. Gopal v/s1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and another observed that, without following Section 2 (00) , (bb) and provision of Section 25 ( f) employee though on probation cannot be terminated . The citation published in F.L.R. 1979 (3 ) p . 24 while deciding the case of Dy. General Manager v/s M. Shasidan and ors. Kerala High Court observed that:

"You had been passed the probation and appointed asthe Cargo Traffic Officer from first of August. The terms and conditions are as follows:.

" In a case where a probationer whose service is liable to be terminated of it is found unsatisfactory is discharged from service on the basis that it is so found it is not a termination on account of any misconduct on the part of the employee . Therefore, in such a case there is no need to hold and enquiry . Aprobationer holds his office on trial , and it is one of the conditions of his probation that his confirmation depends on his completing satisfactory service during the period of probation. His work and conduct are liable to be watched during the period and it is the assessment of such work and conduct that ultimately determines the question of confirmation. , Therefore , if a decision is taken to terminate his service because his service is not satisfactory to the appointing authority, there need be no enquiry to prove that fact . This position is well-established to call for any discussion. It has beenwell settled that termination prior to the period ofprobation would not be proper. Evidently that is because it is an assessment made at the end of the term or period of probation that would justify the decision either to confirm or to terminate . Of course parties can provide otherwise in the agreement. "

15.Considering this position and the termination was effected on the 2nd Party Workman during probation, pausing for a moment is not legal still one month's notice require to given. But here no such a notice was given . Besides, salary of one month in lieu of one month was also not paid and offered. Besides , retrenchemen compesation was also not given and provisions of Section 25 (f) are not followed before effecting such a termination . So I conclude that, decision taken by the First Party in terminating 2nd Party Workman giving effect from 1st December, 1999 is not legal and justifiable . So I answer this issue in negative,

ISSUE NO . 3

From these two letters we find, his previous services were considered while giving appointment order dated 1st August, 1999 by EVA AIR i.e. Ist Party. Whereas Exhibit A reveals that, said appointment letter dated 25th November, 1998 was on the letter - head of Greenways Air & Travel Pvt. Ltd. as well as bearing name ofEVA Air. It is not explained how and why it is like that . The very fantastic arguments were advance by the Ist Party's advocate which I am unable to digest by saying that, due to lack of Knowledge in English language , appointment letter dated 1stAugust, 1999 mentions the above referred 2 sentences regarding probation and appointment of the 2nd Party Workman. If that is so , question arises how Exhibit " A" bears name of EVAs and how it is mentioned in the appointment letter dated 1st August , 1999 regarding probation completed by 2nd Party Workman? The Company who is doing work at international level , can have a excuse of poor knowledge of English? In my considered view 1st Party cannot take benefit of it, since Exhibit " A" bears its name and Exhibit " B " refer the probationary period done by the 2nd Party Workman. So , if we read both those together and count the services of the 2nd Party Workman from 25th November, 1998 till he was terminated by letter dated 30th November, 1999 we find 2nd Party has completed more than 240 days to call him as a deemed employee . When he is deemed employee, he cannot be terminated as terminated in the instant case. It isadmitted fact that, neither charge sheet was served nor notice given of one month . Even it is clear from the record that salary of one month in lieu of one month notice was not given or deposited by the 1st Party to show that, it has shown willingness to offer legal salary ofone month in lieu of the notice . Instead of simply mentioning in the termination letter that, he will be paid one month's salary in lieu of notice , and when it is a matter of record that it was not send or paid which is pre -condition to give such a termination and retrenchment compensation was not paid as required under Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 reveals 1st Party has violated said while terminating services of the 2nd Party.

16.Whentermination under the challenge is not legal and proper question arises what relief can be given? Admittedly 2nd Party is not unemployed, as accepted, to claim reinstatement and back wages . In the flow of arguments the Ld . Advocate for the First Party has 6432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

submitted that, Second Party has not attended proceedings since he is in Australia. That, statement is not disputed by 2nd Party and his Advocate when he got an opportunity to say something about staying of 2nd Party is staying in Australia . Moreover, it is an admitted fact that, wife of 2nd Party is working in TATA as a HRD . So it shows that, 2nd Party has sorce of income and not sufferer as a result of this termination . However, fact remains that, termination is illegal since salary of one month was not offered in lieu of notice and he was terminated illegally. To regularize the termination I am of the considered view that, 2nd Party Workman is entitled to get salary of one month i.e. Rs . 10500 only from the First party in the form of salaryof one month in lieu of one month's notice . So, I conclude that, 2nd Party is entitled to get only Rs . 10500 from the FirstParty. Hence , the order :

ORDER

(a) Reference is partly allowed;

(b). Prayer of 2nd Party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages is rejected;

(d) In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

Mumbai ,

A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer 17thMay, 2006 .

नई दिल्ली, 26 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2804,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, 1 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/55/2002- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 26th June, 2006

S.O. 2804. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No.34/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, I Mumbai I now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employment in Relation to the management of Air India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-06-2006.

[No. L- 11012/55/2002 -IR(C-I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI Present :

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -34 of 2003

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Air India .

AND

Their Workmen

Appearance :

For the Management : Mr. Kumar Vaidyanathan, Adv. For the Workman

Mr. J. P. Sawant, Adv.

: : Workman present in person.

: Maharashtra.

Mumbai dated 14th day of June ' 2006 .

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercsie of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L - 11012/ 55 /2002 dt . 8-7-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows .

"Whether the action of management of Air India Ltd. in dismissing the services of Shri N. P. Wadkar, Peon w.e.f 24-9-1997 is legal just and fair? If not, to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ?"

2. The workman Mr. N.P. Wadkar filed the Statement of Claimdt. 22-8-2003 and contended that he had submitted his explanationdt. 11-4-1996 to the charge sheet dt . 19-3-1996 issued to him and had explained the circumstances for his late attendance . He had no intention to commit any misconduct but he was unable to attend his duty on time on certain occasions because of the circumstances and difficulties those were beyond his control. The mother and other members of the family ofthe workman were not keeping well and the workman was required to take care of his ailing members of the family. The proportionate wages for the period of his late attendance have already been deducted by the management . The workman was also late in attendance from December 1995 onwards on account of divergence 6433 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

before the enquiry committee . It is an admitted position that the workman reported for duty late on 65 occasions in a short period of 8 months. Besides this even in the past he was found totally irregular in attendance."

4. The workman filed the rejoinder and reiterated the version of the statement of claim .

5. The following issues were framed in this matter:

ofstaffbus for which the management had issued the circular dt. 14-5-1996 for condoning the late attendance but the benefit of this circular was not given to the workman. He was very much punctual on his duties from january 1996 onwards . The enquiry proceedings have been assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are alleged to be perverse . punishment awarded to the workman is very much severe , excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct . it is also submitted that the workman has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 01-4-1997 and not w.e.f. 24-9-1997 as mentioned in the terms of reference .

(1) Whether the priciples of natural justice were followed by the management while conducting disciplinary proceedings against the workman ?

(2) Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse ?

(3) Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the workman by the Management is disproportionate to the gravity of alleged misconduct ?

(4) Whether the action of the Management in dismissing the workman is legal, just and fair ?

(5) What Order ?

6, The workman filed his own affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and he has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the Management . On the other side, the Management filed the affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Rodkar, Enquiry Officer in lieu examination in chief. He proved the enquiry proceedings . He has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the workman. The parties have filed certain documents and they have been duly exhibited .

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record .

8. FINDINGS : ISSUE NO . 1 AND 2

The evidence available on record does not show at all that the enquiry in the instant case is not just and fair or that there is any violation of principle of natural justice. The burden lies upon the workman to how some circumstances to show the violation of principle of natural justice . No circumstance whatsoever is being brought on record to justify the conclusion for violation ofprinciple of natural justice . The matter had earlier been investigated in detail by the Tribunal in NTB - 21 of 1997 and at that time also the enquiry was held to be just and fair. That findig was not assailed by the workmanin any Higher Court . The workman was present along with his Defence Representative during the course of enquiry on each and every date . He was given full opportunity to cross examine the witness produced by the Management . He was given full opportunity to lead 3. The written statement dt. 06-10-2003 is being filed by the Management of Air India Ltd. It is submitted that enquiry is just and fair . The findings are just and fair. There is no violation of principle of natural justice. Since the explanation furnished by the workman for his late attendance was not found to be satisfactory, the domestic enquiry was initiated. The workman fully participated in the domestic enquiry along with his Defence Representative. He remained present on each and every date of the enquiry proceedings . Every opportunity of hearing was given to him. The explanation furnished by the workman for late attendance was not found to be satisfactory. The explanation submitted by the workman on the receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer was considered by the Competent Authority and thereupon a show cause notice was issued to the workman as to why he may not be dismissed . The explanation was considered by the Competent Authority and final order of dismissal was passed in accordance with law. The application for Approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act was moved by the Management of Air Indiabefore National Industrial Tribunal , Numbai vide NTB - 21 of 1997 which was decided by the Tribunal on 29-7-1999 . The enquiry was found to be just and fair. The Tribunal however, held that the punishment inflicted upon the workman was severe and not commensurate to the gravity of the charges . The Tribunal thus ordered for the reinstatement of the workman . This judgement was challenged by the Management before the Honourable High court ofBombay vide Writ Petition No. 2992 of 1999 reported on 2001 I CLR 643. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the judgement of the Tribunal for reinstatement and granted the Approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. The workman preferred the Appeal No. 364 of 2001 which was decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Shah and V.J. Tahilramani J.J. The appeal was dismissed on 27-3-2002 with the observations "In any event prima facie it is not possible to accept the case of the workman that the punishment was excessively harsh or disproportionate . The charge of habitual late coming has been squarely established by the company 6434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

evidence in defence . He was given the copy of the enquiry report and he was also given a show cause notice before passing of the order of dismissal . He was heard in person by the Competent Authority. The explanation for late attendance was not found to be satisfactory by the Competent Authority.

9. Hence, 1 conclude that enquiry is just and fair. There is no violation of principle of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are not perverse .

10. ISSUE NO . 3 AND 4:

The only contention put forth before this Tribunal by the learned counsel for the workman is that this Tribunal has got vide powers under Section 11 - A of the Industrial Dispute Act. He submitted that the workman has been charged for late attendance. The workman has explained the circumstances for late attendance . In any view of the matter the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman is very severe and excessive to the charge of late attendance. The mercy appeal is put forth before me that the workman may be ordered to be reinstated .

11. The workman has been charged for misconduct for late attendance for the period from July 1995 to February 1996. It is the admitted position that the workman remained absent during the aforesaid period on 65 occasions totaling to 46 hours and 35 minutes . This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court and the contention of the workman has not found favour. The Tribunal while deciding NTB - 21 of 1997 found that the enquiry was just and fair but the punishment of dismissal was severe . The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition filed by the management of Air India held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of the punishment while deciding the application under Section 33 (2 ) (b ) of the Industrial Dispute Act but, after discussing all the aspects of matter at length also held that the punishment awarded was just and proper . It was not found to be harsh or excessive . The appeal preferred by the workman before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay resulted in dismissal . The Hon'ble Division Bench agreed with the judgement of the learned Single Judge . It further considered the adequacy of the punishment. It held that in any event prima facie it is not possiblee to accept the case of the workman that the punishment was excessively harsh or disproportionate . The charge of habitual late conting has been sequarely established and the workman reported for duty on 65 occasions in a short period of 8 months .

12. It is true that the aforesaid judgements have been passed by the the Hon'ble High Court on the Application moved by the Air India under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act but it is a fact that the Hon'ble Single Judge and also the Hon'ble Division Bench considered the adequacy of the punishment too and held that it is not excessive or harsh. In view of the powers conferred by the Act under section 11 - A this Tribunal would have been inclined to order the reinstatement of

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] the workman without back wages but the rule ofjudicial propriety does not warrant for passing of such an order and thereby undo the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court which became final in March 2002.

13. In view of the above , I conclude that the punishment of dismissal of the workman is not disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and that the action of the Management in dismissing the workman is just and fair.

14. ISSUE NO . 5 :

In view of the aforesaid findings the workman is not entitled to any relief by this Tribunal .

15. The Award is made accordingly. Justice GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

का.आ. 2805.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 213/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[.सं. एल -40012/25/2001- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्रसिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2805.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.213/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006,

[No. L -40012/ 25/2001 -IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT -1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 213/2001

Sh . Jatinder S/ o Sh . Anand Kishore,

....Applicant C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet , 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab . ) 151001 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Versus

Respondent 1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar (Punjab) 143001

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R. S. Rana

Sh . G.C. Babbar For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt. vide Notification No. L-40012/25/2001/ IR (D.U. ) dated 27-4-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Jatinder S/o Sh. Anand Kishore is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties. The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2806.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17. के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/539/2000 - आईआर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2806. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.81/2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-400 12/539/2000- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

6435

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1 , CAHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 81/2001

Smt. Kulbir Kaur,

D/o Late Sh. Dhian Singh ,

C/o Sh. N. K. Jeet,

27349, Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bhatinda (Punjab .) 151001

....Applicant

Versus

Respondent 1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar(Punjab) 143001

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R. S. Rana

Sh . G.C. Babbar For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012/539/ 2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 31-1-2001 has referred the following dispute, to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Smt. Kulbir Kaur, D/o Late Sh . Dhian Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S: Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006. In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

का.आ. 2807.-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 को बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 211/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/23/2001- आईआर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी 6436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2807. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.211/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/23/2001 -IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CAHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 211/2001

Sh. Ashok Kumar,

S/o Sh . Mohinder Pal ,

C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet,

Applicant 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb . ) 151001

Versus

Respondent 1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar (Punjab) 143001

APPEARANCES :

: For the workman

Sh . R. S. Rana

Sh . G.C. Babbar For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt, vide Notification No. L-40012/23/2001/ IR (D.U. ) dated 27-4-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar in termination of services of Ashok Kumar , S/o Sh. Mohinder Pal is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawnin Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2808.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 85/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं एल-40012/521/2000- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2808. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006,

[No. L-400 12/521 /2000- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT-1 , CAHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 85/2001

Sh . Charanjit Singh,

S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh, C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet , 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151001

....Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom ,

..Respondent Amritsar (Punjab ) 143001

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R. S. Rana

Sh. G.C. Babbar For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012/ 521 / 2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 31-1-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager , Telecom, Amritsar in termination of services of Sh. Charanjit Singh , S/o Sh. Kashmir Singh, is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6437

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2809.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/541/2000- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2809. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.79/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2006 .

[No. L-40012/541/2000- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Cáše No. L.D , 79/2001

Sh. Vipan Kumar,

S/o Sh. Sat Pal,

C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet,

27349, Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bhatinda (Pb .) 151001

....Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar(Punjab ) 143001

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012/541/ 2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 31-1-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar in termination of services of Sh . Vipan Kumar, S/o Sh. Sat Pal is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt, be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006 RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2810.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 213/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/108/2000 - आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2810. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.213/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L -40012/108/2000- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. LD . 213/2000

.....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Sh. R. S. Rana For theworkman

Sh . G. C. Babbar For the management

Sh . Roop Lal, C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union,

Mohalla Hari Nagar,

Lal Singh Basti Road ,

.....Applicant Bhatinda (Pb .) 151001 6438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

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

ANNEXURE '

.....Respondent

1. The General Manager, Deptt . of Telecom , Hoshiyarpur- 152001

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1, APPEARANCES :

CHANDIGARH

For the workman

Case No. I.D. 167/2000

Sh . R. S. Rana Ms. Deepali Puri

For the management

Ms. Paramjit Kaur C/ o Sh . N. K. Jeet ,

AWARD

President , Telecom Labour Union ,

Passed on 30-5-2006

Mohalla Hari Nagar,

Lal Singh Basti Road ,

Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151 001

....Applicant Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012/108/ 2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 30-5-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Versus

1. The General Manager, Deptt. of Telecom ,

Respondent

Hoshiyarpur - 152 001

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . R. S. Rana "Whether the action of the Management of General Manager , Telecom, Hoshiarpur in ordering dis- engagement/termination of services of Sh . Roop Lal, aworkman engaged through Contractor Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma , w.e.f. 1-3-99 is legal and justified ? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

For the management

Ms. Deepali Puri

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006 .

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/ 459/ 99 / IR ( D.U. ) dated 13-3-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

"Whether the action of General Manager, Telecom, Hoshiyarpur in ordering disengagement / termination of services of Miss Paramjit Kaur workman engaged through Contractor Sh . Ashok Kumar Sharma, w.e.f. 1-3-99 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

का.आ. 2811.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नंः I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 167/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh .

30-5-2006

[सं. एल-40012/459/99- आईआर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2812.-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 औद्योगिकः अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 395/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

S.O. 2811. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 167/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[सं. एल-40012/332/2000- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी [No. L-40012/459/99 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ر [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6439

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2812.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 395/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/332 /2000- IR(DU))

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. LD. 395/2000

Sh. Paramjit Singh ,

S/o Sh. Rattan Singh ,

C/o Sh . N.K. Jeet, 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151 005

....Applicant

Versus

I. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar,

(Punjab) 143001

....Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . R. S. Rana

Sh. G.C. Babbar For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Government vide Notification No. L -40012/ 332/2000 - IR (DU) dated 28-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Sh . Paramjit Singh S/ o Sh. Rattan Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties. The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

का.आ. 2813.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 393/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/330/2000- आईआर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2813. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 393/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/330/2000- IR (DU) )

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 393/2000

Sh. Balraj Singh,

....Applicant S/o Sh . Lakhbir Singh C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet, 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb . ) 151 005

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar,

(Punjab) 143 001

......Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . R. S. Rana

Sh. G.C. Babbar For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/ 330/2000 - IR (DU) dated 28-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom, Amritsar in termination of services of Sh. Balraj Singh S/o Sh. Lakhbir Singh isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the,workman is entitled and from which date ?" 6440

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006 RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2006

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Government vide Notification No. L -40012/ 323 /2000/ IR ( DU) , dated 28-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar in termination of services of Sh . Rajwinder Singh S/o Sh . Amrik Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

का.आ. 2814,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 385/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/323/2000- आईआर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2814.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 385/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/323/2000 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 385/2000

Sh. Rajwinder Singh,

S/o Sh . Amrik Singh, C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet, 27349. Lại Singh Basti Road ,

Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151005.

Applicant

Versus

.....Respondent 1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar, (Punjab) 143001 .

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . R. S. Rana

Sh . G. C. Babbar For the management :

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का. आ. 2815 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 387/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/320/2000- आईआर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2815.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 387/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government оп 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-40012/320/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVRNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 387/2000

Sh. Jatinder Singh S/o Sh . Surinder Singh,

C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet ,

27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bhatinda (Pb . ) 151001

.... Applicant [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6441

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar(Punjab) 143001

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. R. S. Rana

Sh . G. C. Babbar For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 389/2000

Sh. Mukhtar Singh S/o Sh. Tarlochan Singh ,

C/o Sh. N. K. Jeet , 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bhatinda (Pb .) 151001

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/ 320/2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 28-09-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

....Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom,

Amritsar (Punjab) 143001

.....Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Jatinder Singh S/o Sh. Surinder Singh isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

Sh . R.S. Rana

Sh . G.C. Babbar For the management

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be istformed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006 RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2816.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर- संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. I, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 389/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/316/2000- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2816.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 389/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department ofTelecom and their workman, which was receiveded bybythethe Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L -40012/316/2000- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Government vide Notification No. L -40012/ 316/2000/IR (D.U. ) dated 28-09-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Sh . Mukhtar Singh S/o Sh. Tarlochan Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties. The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Goovernment be informed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh .

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Fresiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

का. आ. 2817.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- I, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 391/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/318/2000- आईआर(डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी 6442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S. O. 2817.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 391/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/318/2000- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH CASE NO . I.D. 391/2000

Sh . Jagir Singh S/ o Sh . Tarlochan Singh C/o Shri N.K. Jeet, 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road Bhatinda, (Pb.) 151005

-Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager, Telecom. , Amritsar , (Punjab) 143001

-Respondent

APPEARANCES

Sh . R. S. Rana Forthe workman :

Sh. G. C. Babbar For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006.

Central Government vide notification No. L -40012/ 318 / 2000 /IR ( DU ) dated 28-09-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Sh . Jagir Singh S/o Sh . Tarlochan Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties. The authorised representative ofworkman Shri R. S. Ranawithdraw the present reference vide his statement on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh. 30-5-2006 .

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2818.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यूक्लियर पॉवर कॉर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 11 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/54 ऑफ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 19/2000- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2004

S.O. 2818. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/54 of 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , No. II , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Nuclear Power Corporation and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-42012/ 19/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT:

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE : CGIT-54 OF 2000

Employers in Relation to the Management of Nuclear Power Corporation

GeneralManager (P & A) ,

Nuclear Power Corporation ,

Vikram SaraBhawan, Anushakti Nagar , Mumbai -400 094.

AND

Their Workmen

Sh. Shambhu Bhagat Sharvati , C- 18, New Mandela, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai -400094.

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Employer :

Mr. V. H. Kantharia, i/b M/ s . Rajesh Kothari & Co. Advocates .

For the Workmen :

Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate .

Date ofreserving Award: 11th May, 2006.

Dateofpassing of Award : 29th May, 2006.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6443

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

AWARD-PART II

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceeding are as under:

hearing the workman, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon him . So far subsistence allowance, it is pleaded that workman was paid as per rules and that in accordance with the extent rules and as per the principles of natural justice inquiry was held and that the inquiry being fair and proper and the findings being based on the evidence and the material before are not perverse . Consequently Corporation contended inquiry being fair the claim ofthe workman be dismissed with costs .

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, by its Order no . L-42012/ 19/2000- IR(DU) dated 1st June , 2000 in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management ofNuclear PowerCorporation Ltd. , Mumbai by terminating the services ofMr. Shambhu Bhagat, Steno w.e.f. 2-5-1997 is justified ? If not, to what releif the workman Mr. Shambhu is entitled ?"

4. By Rejoinder (Exhibit 9 ) workman reiterated the recitals in the Statement of Claim denied the averments in the Written Statement. He pleaded that he was being compelledto write and sign some papers by Shri H. S. Iyer , VigilanceOfficer on 4-9-1996 . He averred that he had not committed any misconduct and that inquiry vitiates.

5. On the basis of pleadings issues were framed at Exhibit 11 and in that context workman filed affidavit in lieu ofExamination-in -Chief (Exhibit 19) and closed evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 20) . Enquiry Officer (Manager P & IR) Mr. Chopra filed affidavit ( Exhibit 25) and management closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 26).

6. Workman filed written submissions ( Exhibit 27/29) and the rulings with list ( Exhibit 31) and the management (Exhibit 28) . On perusing the records , the written submissions and hearing both the counsels preliminary issue of inquiry and perversity offinding were decided 30th January, 2003 holding inquiry fair and finding not perverse.

7. On later part i.e. on punishment reference . proceeded. I answer those Issues as follows :

IssueNo.

Findings

3. Whether the action of the management Yes ofNuclearPower Corporation Ltd. , Mumbai , by terminating the services of Mr. Shambhu Bhagat, steno , w.e.f. 2-5-1997

isjust and proper?

Does not 2. Workman Bhagat was employed as Stenographer with the Management Corporation from 23rd August, 1993 . By Statement of Claim (Exhibit 3) workman pleaded that Corporation placed him under suspension by the order dated4th September, 1996 and that he was issued charge sheet dated 19th September, 1996 and directed him to deposit Rs . 36,170/- to the accounts section . It is pleaded workman replied the said charge sheet on 26th September, 1996. However, without considering the reply, domestic enquirywas conducted against him . Workman averred that inquiry held against him was not fair and proper. He was not given subsistence allowance at increased rate , Corporation had no authority of law to hold inquiry, he was not given sufficient opportunity and further averred that inquiry officer was bias and that findings recorded by him are perverse . He pleaded that he had preferred appeal against the findings of the inquiry on 11th October, 1999 , however, that was turned down on 29th November, 1999. It is pleaded management based on the report dated 22ndApril, 1999 holding him guilty illegally dismissed from the services, w.e.f. 23rd August, 1999 and not from 2nd May, 1997 as mentioned incorrectly in the schedule . He pleaded inquiry being unfair management be directed to reinstate him in service with full backwages.

Survive

4. Ifnot, what relief the workman Mr. Shambhu is entitled to?

REASONS :

ISSUE NO. 1 & 2 :

8. In this instant reference , while deciding Part- I Award, My predecessor observed the domestic enquiry fair and proper. he also observed finding not perverse and directed both the parties to participate for adjudication on remaining issue i.e. issue regarding punishment awarded on2nd Party Workman.

9. Itisamatterofrecord that 2nd Party was dismissed from the services as a result offinding given by the Enquiry Officerwho held him guilty of the charge of misconduct and observed that, he was responsible for withdrawing amount of Rs . 36,170/- in the guise of overtime charges . The charge leveled against the 2nd Party Workman was 3. The Management Corporation resisted the claim of workman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit 8 ) contending that the workman while working as junior stenographer by preparing false overtime claims forging thesignatures ofthe officers , draw amount of Rs . 36,170/- thereby committed serious misconduct. It is pleaded that during the period May, 1995 and July, 1996 he prepared bills of overtime , forging the signatures of the Controlling Officer and the Director Corporate Finance and that by the letter dated 4th January , 1996 he admitted the same. It is contended to prefer fraudulent overtime bills amounts to misconduct under the service rules and therefore inquiry was conducted against the workman by giving charge sheet dated 19th September, 1996. It is pleaded giving sufficient opportunity to both parties , inquiry officer recorded the findings and that Disciplinary Authority 6444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] that, with the forged signatures of S/Shri A. N. Tandon and K. J. Sebastian he withdrew the amount of Rs . 36,170/- which is a serious type of misconduct . The chargesheet was served on him . he was given an opportunity to explain the charge leveled against him . Accordingly enquiry was conducted. He participated in the enquiry. After examining the witnesses ofthe 1st Party. Enquiry Officer concluded 2nd Party responsible for the withdrawal of the said amount of Rs . 36,170/- unauthorizedly and held him guilty of the misconduct . On the basis of the said finding ist Party awarded punishment of termination and it is challenged by 2nd Party. When Party I Award was declared holding 2nd Party Workman guilty of the charges, holding enquiry fair and proper, and finding not perverse , both sides were invited by the Tribunal to lead evidence on the point of punishment. After that 2nd Party examined himself at Exhibit 38 repeating the samethings . he was cross examined by 1st Party's Advocate only on the point of his relief of back wages and continuity of service . In the cross examination 2nd PartyWorkman admit that , he did not apply anywhere for the job . It was suggested that, he is doing business after termination which he denied. Then 2nd Party filed closing purshis at Exhibit 39 reiterating that, he do not want to lead any evidence on the point of punishment. Against that , Ist Party chose not to lead evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 41. Then 2nd Party submitted hiswritten arguments at Exhibit 42 with citations . 1st Party's Advocate also submitted oral arguments and referred some citations pointing out that, in proved charge of misconduct punishment of termination is just and proper and in that case,Labour Court cannot interfere on the penalty imposed on such an employee .

10. This is the second round of litigation . Here question before us is whether punishment awarded on 2nd Party of termination is just and proper and if not, what relief2nd Party is entitled as per Issue Nos . 3 and 4 ?

signatures ofS/Shri Tandon and Sebastian , definitely nature of offence is of very serious nature . It is a matter of record that , said charges were leveled against 2nd Party and Enquiry Officer observed that, those are proved against him . That means , misconduct of fraudulently withdrawing Rs . 36,170 / - is proved against him . When it is the misconduct and when it is proved against the 2nd Party Workman, who was working as a Stenographer , with the 1st Party, which is responsible post and against whom such a charge is proved and when such an incident took place in a institute like Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited which is playing a very important role in the technical filed, in my considered view, when offence is proved such a persons cannot be considered lightly. The citation referred by First Party's Advocate by taking reference of copy ofjudgment in Civil Appeal No. 8304- 8305 of2002 decided on 25-01-2005, the appeal proceeded in between Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v/ s . M. Chandrasekhar Reddy and Ors. Apex Court observed that, while exercising discretionary powers , one should be slow and while reducing such a punishment one must have a reason to reduce the punishment . In the case referred inter alia the Labour Courtreduced the punishment oftermination served on the Workman involved in that case and while commenting on that, it was observed by the Apex Court that , there must be strong reason to reduce the punishment oftermination . Besides , that another case law was referred to by the 1st Party's Advocate from C.A. No. 5224-25/2000 whiledeciding case of Janatha Bazar ( South Kanara Central Co- operative whole Sale Stores Limited ) etc. v/ s . the Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha etc. the Apex Court observed that, in proved act of misappropriation one cannot take it lightly though number of such misappropriation cases remain undisclosed. It is also observed that , misappropriation cannot be rewarded or legalized by reinstatement in service with full or part of back wages . Besides , it is observed that , when misappropriation is proved in such a case question of considering past record of such an employee does not arise while interfering with the punishment awarded on such an employee . In the instant case it istried to be pointed out that, the past record of the 2nd Party is good. Charge of misappropriation is proved against 2nd Party Workman . So above referred view doesnot permit to give special consideration to the prayer ofthe 2nd Party to ignore charge proved and take lenient view.

11. It is a matter of record that , enquiry is observed justand proper and finding not perverse . In the said enquiry charge of misconduct was proved against the 2nd Party Workman. However, in his written arguments , at this stage, submitted by 2nd Party Workman at Exhibit 42 , he repeated the samethings which he has put in Part I and go on talking , about the fairness of the enquiry and perversity of the find which in fact is not the subject matter at this stage . At this stage subject matter, is whether punishment awarded on 2nd Party Workman of termination is just and proper, if not what relief he can get ?

13. So from the record and case made out by both, it reveals that, 2nd Party did not apply anywhere for job . In fact it is duty and burden on him to show that, he is unemployed and his family sufferers as a result of punishment awarded on him . Even no such specific case is made out by the 2nd Party to show that , due to punishment awarded on him of termination, he and his family sufferers . No doubt burden is on 1st Party to show that , 2nd Party is 12. As it is the matter of record that , misconduct of withdrawing Rs . 36,170/- is proved against the 2nd Party Workman. In the inquiry it is observed that, with forged signatures of S / Shri Tandon and Sebastian 2nd Party claimed the overtime allowances . When such an amount was withdrawn by 2nd Party Workman by forging the 6445

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

employed. but initially such burden is on 2nd Party to show that, he is unemployed and he is in critical financial position . Itisa matter ofrecord that, no such case is made out by the 2nd Party and no evidence is led of any type by him on that point. When no case is there and no evidence is on that, point in my considered view, question of reconsidering the punishment awarded on him of termination does not arise. Moreover, it is not pleaded by 2nd Party that, due to this termination he and his family suffers . It is not his case that, dueto this termination, he and his family are facing financial crisis and are ' affected very seriously' . On the contrary he states that, he did not apply anywhere and did not try to search for job. When he did not apply and opt for job in my considered view, burden of proving financial condition of 2nd Party does not lie on 1st Party there is no case of 2nd Party of that type . So I conclude that, 2nd Party is not entitled for reinstatement and for any other relief.

14. In view ofthe discussion made above I conclude that, 2nd Party Workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence I answer the above Issue in the negative and passes the followingorder:

ORDER

(a) Reference is rejected;

(b) No order as to costs .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Mumbai, 29thMay,2006.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

का. आ. 2819. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम फैक्ट्री, बी.एस.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी. 58 ऑफ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 114/2000- आईआर(डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 27th June, 2006

S. O. 2819. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 58 of2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the Employers in relation to the management of Telecom Factory, BSNL and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-40012/ 114/2000- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer 2057 Gl /2006-21

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. IL, MUMBAI PRESENT : A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer Reference : CGIT- 58 of 2000

Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

The ChiefGeneral Manager ,

Telecom Factory, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Deonar, Mumbai 400 088.

And

Their Workmen

Rashtriya Telecom Employees & Workers Union , ThePresident, 63, Sarith Vishwakarma Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai400080 . (Rajendrakumar Rajaram Gawde)

Appearance:

Mr. B. M. Masurkar, Forthe Employer :

Advocate

Mr. M.V. Palkar,

For the Workmen :

Advocate

Date of reserving Award:

8thMay,2006

Date ofpassing ofAward: 16thMay,2006.

AWARD- PART I

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceeding are as under:

1. The Government of India, Ministry, of Labour, by its Order No. L-40012/ 114/2000- IR(DU) dated 21st June, 2000 in exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause (d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Factory now taken over by the Bharat SancharNigam Limited, Deonar, in terminatingthe services of Sh.R.R. Gawade is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2.By filing the Statement of Claim , at Exhibit 6, the 2nd PartyWorkman and General Secretary ofthe Rashtriya Telecom Employees & Workers Union, submit that, enquiry conducted against 2nd Party Workman viz . R.R. Gawade conductedby following principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the 2nd Party Workman to attend the Enquiry. His duties about 60% were manual and 40% were clerical. He was appointed as Planner Grade I Staff 6446

No. 10479/2 . Then he was promoted and designated as a Planner Grade I. Though he was designated as Planner I , he was having no authority to appoint anybody or to remove anybody. He had no power to sanction anybody's leave and had no authority to initiate any disciplinary action against any of the workman . He had no authorityto sign any Bank account on behalf of the Ist Party and had no authority to withdraw the amount for 1st Party. He was not Constituted Attorney of the 1st Party. His principal dutieswere oftechnical and operational in nature and there was no even a stinct of supervisory duties as far as his duties were concerned . He was working as per the instructions received by him from his superiors . False allegations were levelled against him . Farce of enquiry was made by the 1st Party. Enquiry Officer was bias . At that particular time Apex Court treated 1st Party not an Industry. So employee did not attend Inquiry . Later Apex Court decided otherwise and observed 1st Party as an Indusrty. The finding given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse . The punishment of " compulsory retirement" of 2nd Party Workman is nothing but terminating his employment at the age of41 years as retirement age with the 1st Party is upto 60 years . So it is submitted that, action taken by First Party in retiring compulsory Second Party Workman by order dated 15th March , 2000 is nothing but terminating him from employment be set aside with the directions to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity ofservice .

3.This prayer is disputed by the First Party by filing reply at Exhibit 8 stating and contending that, reference is not tenable as subject matter of Reference " Compulsory Retirement" does not fall within the purview of Section under which the Competent Authority send the reference for adjudication. It was not the termination. It is contended that, subject matter of the Reference " Compulsory Retirement " does not fall under the definition of "Termination" . This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give verdict on compulsory retirement . Besides , this it is contended that charge sheet was served on Second Party Workman. Full opportunity was given to 2nd Party Workman'Gawade ' to participate in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer was having foundation to give finding against the 2nd Party Workman. Even the punishment awarded by the Enquiry Officer of termination was reviewed by the Appellate Authority and leniency was shown . In the appeal, 2nd Party was permitted to retire by which he got all retirement benefits i.e. Gratuity, Pension , Provident Fund etc. If at all , he would have been terminated, he could not have got those benefits and as such relief was given to the SecondPartyWorkman by asking him to retire compulsorily.

4.He committed serious offence like commission of misconduct which is of very serious nature . Said charge was levelled and proved against him . Though opportunity was given but he did not utilize it and did not participate in the enquiry as decision to retire 2nd Party Workman ,

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

Gawade, was taken after conducting enquiry, now 2nd Party Workman, Gawade cannot challenge it as subject matter of "compulsory retirement " does not fall within the jurisdiction ofthis Tribunal . Reference is send presuming that 2nd Party Workman is terminated. Actually said punishment of termination was reviewed by Appellate Auithority and he wascompulsorily retired. In fact decision of the 1st Party is ofcompulsory retirement . It ought to have been challenged by 2nd Party. Since the punishment of termination does not subsists , reference sent under said guise be rejected as Tribunal cannot travel beyond subject matter of 'Termination' and give verdict on compulsory retirement .

5. In view of the above pleadings Issues were framed by my Ld . Predecessor at Exhibit 13. Out of those Issue Nos . 1 , 2, 4 and 5 i.e. regarding latches in the Reference and Status of 2nd Party as a ' workman ' alongwith the point of fairness of enquiry and perversity of the findings are there. Those are answered as follows :

Issues

Findings

1. Whether the domestic Inquiry conducted against the workman was as perthePrinciples ofNatural Justice?

Yes 2.Whether the findings of the InquiryOfficer are perverse?

3. Whether the reference suffers from delay and Latches as in para- 1 of the Written Statement (Exhibit8)?

REASONS:

Issue Nos . 1 and 2 .

6. 2nd Party claims that, enquiry was not conducted by following principles of natural justice . In fact original enquiry proceedings are not placed on record to substantiate the case of the 1st Party that, enquiry was conductedand it was fair and proper. Whereas case made outby the First Party is that , enquiry was conducted which was fair and proper . He was given opportunity to defend hiscase. However, he refused to participate in the enquiry. It isdenied that, Enquiry Officer had predetermined mind to hold him guilty. 2nd Party Workman Jain attended enquiry but stayed away from it with ulterior motive to challenge the action taken by the 1st party to suit his purpose.

7. In that light if we peruse the record placed on record regarding enquiry, we find , the original enquiry proceeding is not placed on record . Xerox copy of the enquiry proceeding is placed on record with Exhibit 13 from page Nos . 1 to 52. If we peruse those we find he did 6447 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

removal and that, was converted into compulsory retirement. The decision taken by the 1st party in above both forms was of very serious nature as by that, services ofthe Second Party Workman ' Gawade ' comes to an end and their relations of employee and employer also comes toanend. So in my considered view, such an actionwhich is taken relying on this type of ex-parte enquiry must be considered minutely as, on the basis of the said enquiry, 1st Party decided to relieve Second Party, from its employment and then compelled him to retire . So for the 1stParty finding of the enquiry was the base to take such adecision. So in my considered view such enquiry cannot be created as good in the eye of law and it require to declared not conducted by following principles of natural justice and proper procedure of the enquiry. Besides , one has todeclare that, the finding given by the enquiry Officer on such ex-parte basis has also no ground. So I conclude that, enquiry was not fair and proper and the finding perverse.Accordingly I answer this issue to that effect.

IssueNo. 3 .

7. The reference sent by the Desk Officer , Government of India, Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi, under Sub-clause (d) ofSub-section (1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is disputed bythe First Party alleging that, since 2nd Party Workman involved in the reference by name Gawade was not terminated but was asked to compulsory retire from the services of the 1st Party by way of order of compulsory retirement. Subject matter of the reference is,' compulsory retirement' , of Gawade , the workman , and not the 'termination' . When he is not terminated 2nd Party cannot challenge it. On the ' termination' appeal was referred by 2nd Party before Competent Authority and after reconsidering the grievances made by the 2nd Party Workman,Gawade, the order of ' termination ' was converted into"compulsoryretirement" . According to 1st Partythere isdifference in' termination' and ' compulsory retirement' . Inthe termination employee cannot get benefits ofgratuity and other retirement benefits whereas employee who retires gets all other benefits including gratuity, Provident Fund and even can work anywhere since there is no stigma of termination and difference is there between ' termination' and 'compulsory retirement' . The subject matter of the reference though worded as the ' termination ' actually it is a'compulsory retirement ' and there was no termination inflicted by 1st Party as referred by the Competent Authority when there is no termination effected on 2nd Partyworkman by 1st Party reference, is not tenable and the said reference suffers from latches and therefore not maintainable . Whereas 2nd Party Workman's argument is that, there is no much difference between ' termination' and'compulsory retirement' . Result ofboth is one and the same i.e. services of the employees comes to an end with the employer. By both these terms the employees and not participate in the inquiry. He is shown absent on 30thJuly, 1998. Inquiry Officer's report pages 26 to 38 reveals 2nd Party Gawade did not participate in the inquiry. Witnesses of Ist party were examined but not crossed by 2nd Party and it also reveals he made several correspondence and pointed out decision ofSupreme Court that 1st Party is not an " Industry " . As far as this position isconcerned, it is not disputed even by 1st party. Since Apex Court observed that, First Party MTNL is not an industry by its earlier judgment, there was no point to appear in the enquiry by the 2nd party Workman Gawade. However, later on Apex Court reversed the said view and observed that, First Party is an " Industry" . Initially in the guise that, 1st Party is not an industry during that, particular period, as per the decision of Apex Court, there was no point tocontest the enquiry proceedings. Even by placing citations published in 1998 I CLR p . 184 the Advocate for 2ndpartysubmitted that, while deciding the case ofGeneral Manager, Telecom V/s . S. Srinivasan & Ors .Apex Court held that, the view taken in case of Bombay Telephone CanteenEmployees ' Association V/s . Union ofIndia- 1997 II CLR Page 218-and view taken in case ofSub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam & Ors . V/s . Theyyam Joseph &Ors. 1996 II CLR page 237 cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. Even this position is not disputedby 1st Party. Above referred correspondence reveals that, Second partydid not participate in the enquiry under that guise . Since in 1998 Apex Court observed that, 1st Party is also an industry, record and proceedings reveal that, meanwhile enquiry was completed and he was removedby letterdated22nd July, 1999. It is matter ofrecord that inquiry was ex-parte 2nd Party did not participate in the inquiry. So all this reveals that, enquiry as expected, was not conducted against Second Party Workman. Even no opportunity was availed to by the 2nd Party Workman Gawade onthe guise that, there was no point in taking part inthe enquiry, since Ist party does fall under definition of 'Industry' ofSection 2(j ) of Industrial Disputes Act . Now, it isclear that, Ist Party is ' an industry' by recent judgment ofApex Court published in 1998 I CLR p . 184, General Manager, Telecom V/s . S. Srinivasan & Ors . So in the said set of circumstances definitely Second Party must get an opportunitytoparticipate in the enquiry. As per the enquiry record, at present which is on record, cannot be called an enquiry conducted by following the principles of natural justice. It reveals 2nd Party did not participate in the inquiry. Enquiry was ex-parte . Even it is a matter of record that, enquirywas ex-parte and that fact is mentioned to by 1st Party inWritten Argument (Exhibit 39) . Stand taken by First Party is that , though opprtunity was given to the Second Party, he did not avail it and in that, set of circumstances it had no option but to proceed against 2nd PartyWorkman ex -parte had to consider in favour of2nd Party. So this itself reveals that, enquiry was an ex-parte enquiry on the basis of which first decision was taken of 6448

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

employers relationships comes to an end and it does not exist. Whenboth gives same result and effect i.e. bring full stop in the employment between employer and employee. Even retirement should be read in that spirit of the termination as it gives same result as secured in the termination . Besides , it is submitted that, Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as under :

"2(A): Dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute : Where any employer discharges , dismisses , retrenches or otherwise terminates the services off an individual workman , any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding than no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute ."

According himthe retirement made by 1st Party of 2ndPartyworkman Gawade involved in this reference fall under category of " otherwise terminating the services of the individual" and dispute raised by the 2nd Party Workman purely fall under Section 2 (A) of Industrial Disputes Act .

proceedings were going on parallelly when notice was served and enquiry was initiated . After suspending Second Party Workman Gawade , 2nd Party workman and union 'raised dispute before ALC and as and when enquiry was in progress Second party workman did not bother to attend the enquiry and lost opportunity of recording the evendence and enquiry officer gave finding holding 2nd Party Workman guilty of the charges and suggested termination . That, was challenged before Conciliation of Officer and at the same time Appeal was preferred by the Second Partybefore the competent authority to reduce the punishment. The punishment of termination suggesd by the enquiry officer was converted into compulsory retirement . Meanwhile reference came regarding termination. When actually there was no termination, and it isnot in dispute that , by virtue of replacement of order of compulsory retirement in place of termination , Reference onthe point of termination does not subsist and survives . But as stated above I do not find any different between punishment of ' compulsory retirement ' and punishment of 'termination' , as result of both is one and the same. Both brings end of employment of 2nd Party Workman and it ceases his relations with the 1st Party. In my considered view, though reference is sent of termination the subject matter of' compulsory retirement' falls under definition 2 (A) under " otherwise termination " and definitely can be entertained by this Tribunal on the basis of the reference sent by the Competent Authority. So I conclude that, the reference does not suffer from any latches as pointed out by the First Party. So I answer this Issue in the negative .

9. In that light if we peruse the record placed on record regarding enquiry, we find, the original enquiry proceeding is not placed on record, Xerox copy of the enquiry proceeding is placed on record with Exhibit 13 from page Nos . I to 66. If we peruse those we find by letters dated 17th January, 1998 , 3rd February , 1998 , 1st April , 1998 and 3rd April , 1998 2nd Party workman Jain informed that, he is not attending the enquiry since the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to First Party MTNL since it is not listed as an Industry within the meaning of Section 3 (j ) of Industrial Disputes Act . As far as this position is concerned , it is not disputed even by 1stParty, as above letters are referred from the documents filedby the 1st Party at Exhibit 13. Then 2nd Party submit that , since Apex Court observed that, first Party MTNL is not an industry by its earlier judgment, there was no point to appear in the enquiry by the 2nd Party Workman Jain . However, later on Apex Court reversed the said view and observed that , First Party is an " Industry " . Initially in the guise that, 1st Party is not an industry during that, particular period, as per the decision of Apex Court, there was no point to contest the enquiry proceedings . Even by placing citations published in 19981 CLR p . 184 the Advocate for 2nd Partysubmitted that, while deciding the case of General 8. It is a matter ofrecord that, 2nd Party Workman's services were terminated and when said punitive action was converted by the 1st Party into " compulsory retirement" it is a matter ofrecord that, 2nd Party Workman was compulsorily retired at the age of 41 years when the retirement age in the 1st Party is 60 years . It is not pointed outby the 1st Party in what way Gawade was benefited by converting punishment of termination into compulsory retirement and how it was lesser punishment that the punishment of termination . As suggested and pointed out by 2nd Party'sAdvocate compulsory retirement cannot be considered less than termination as the result of both is one and the same i. e . of an end of the relations between the employer and employee and it gives full stop to it . It is triedto suggest by 1st Party that , as a result of compulsory retirement, 2nd party workman was benefited and definitely said benefits were enjoyed by the Second Party Workman thanthe punitive action of termination. However, it is not pointed out in what way Second Party was benefited by awarding punishment of compulsory retirement that, too at the age of 41 years , when retirement age was 60 years ? When no such benefits are shown by the 1st Party which might have accrued by the 2nd Party Workman as a result of "retirement " " than by termination" as pleaded by 1st party I am of the considered view that, one cannot find such a difference as tried to be made out by the 1st Party as far as employment of the 2nd Party workman Gawade with the 1st Party is concerned. According to me , simple reason behind is that, as a result of ' compulsory retirement ' at the age of41 , he lost his employment like effecting ' termination' ofhis employment . Besides this , it tried to appoint out by 1st Party that , enquiry proceedings and Conciliation 6449 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

"भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

10. In view of the above discussions carried above Iconclude that, ordering 2nd Party Workman Gawade's to remove from the employment and then converting it into 'compulsory retirement' from service does not come in the way of the Second Party to challenge the same under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act as it is an industrial dispute. I also conclude that enquiry was not fair and proper and finding taken on such an enquiry was perverse , as there was no base before the Enquiry Officer to conclude accordingly. So I pass the following order :

ORDER

(a) enquiry is not fair and proper and finding is perverse ;

(b) the reference does not suffer from latches and reference is maintainable ;

(c) 1st Party is directed to lead evidence to prove the charges leveled against the Second Party Workmanby appearing on 29th June, 2006.

Mumbai,

16thMay,2006.

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2820.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम फैक्ट्री, बी.एस.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-2/43 ऑफ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/32/2000- आईआर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2820. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/43 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. II , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Factory, BSNLand their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/32/2000-IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer Manager, Telecom Vs. S. Srinivasan & Ors . Apex Court held that, the view taken in case of Bombay Telephone CanteenEmployees ' Association Vs. Union of India-1997 II CLR page 218-and view taken in case of Sub -Divisional Inspector of Post. Vaikam & Ors . Vs. Theyyam Joseph & Ors . 1996 II CLR page 237 cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. Even this position is not disputed by 1st Party.Above referred correspondence reveals that, Second Party did not participate in the enquiry under that guise. Since in 1998 Apex Court observed that 1st Party is also an industry, record and proceedings reveal that, meanwhile enquiry was completed on 30th August, 1998 itself and Show Cause Notice was served on 21-10-1998 . Then on 6-11-1998 , as well as by correspondence dated 27-11-1998 and as per arguments advanced by the 2nd Party, that his removal orderwas issued by letter dated 24-12-1998 . So all this reveals that, enquiry as expected, was not conducted against Second Party Workman . Even no opportunity was availed by the 2nd Party Workman Jain on the guise that, there was no point in taking part in the enquiry, since 1st Party does fall under definition of ' Industry ' of Section 2(j ) of Industrial Disputes Act . Now it is clear that, 1stParty is ' an industry' . So in the said set of circumstances definitely Second Party must get an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. As per the enquiry record, at present which is on record , cannot be called an enquiry conducted by following the principles of natural justice. Evendates of enquiry reveals that, it was initiated on 26-9-1997 and finding was given on 30-7-1998 . Even it is a matter ofrecord, that, enquiry was ex-parte and that fact is not disputed by 1st Party also . Stand taken by First Party is that, though opportunity was given to the Second Party it did not avail it and in that, set of circumstances it had no optionbut to proceed against 2nd Party Workman ex -parte has to consider in favour of2nd party. So this itselfreveals that enquirywas an ex -parte enquiry on the basis ofwhich first decision was taken of termination and that was converted into compulsory retirement. The decision taken by the 1st Party in above both forms was of very serious nature as by that services of the Second Party Workman Gawade comes to an end and their relation of employee and employer also comes to an end. So in my considered view, such an action which is taken relying on this type of ex-parte enquiry must be considered minutely as , on the basis ofthe said enquiry, 1st Party decided to relieve Second party, from its employment and then compelled him to retire. So for the 1st Party finding of the enquiry was the base to take such a decision . So in my considered view such enquiry cannot be treated as good in the eye of law and it require todeclared not conducted by following principles of natural justice and proper procedure of the enquiry. Besides, one has to declare that , the finding given by the Enquiry Officer on such ex-parte basis has also no ground. So I conclude that, enquiry was not fair and proper and the finding perverse. Accordingly I answer this issue to that effect .

6450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . IL, MUMBAI

Present :

A.A. LAD Presiding Officer.

Reference : CGIT- 2/43 of 2000

Employers in Relation to the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited.

The Chief General Manager ,

Telecom Factory,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Deonar, Mumbai -400 088 .

AND Their Workmen

The President,

Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080. (Ashok Kumar Hazarilal Jain)

Rashtriya Telecom Employees & Workers Union , 63, Sarith Vishwakarma Nagar, General Secretary.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Mr. B.M. Masurkar , Advocate

For the Workmen : Mr. M.V. Palkar, Advocate, Date of reserving Award : 8thMay, 2006.

Date of passing of Award : 18th May, 2006 .

AWARD-PART- I

that, enquiry conducted against 2nd Party Workman viz . Ashok kumar Hazarilal Jain was not conducted by following principles of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the 2nd Party Workman to attend the enquiry. That, 2nd Party Workman was drawing salary of Rs . 10,000/ per month and fall under the definition of Workman under Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as he did 70% of the duties assigned manually and 30% were clerical . He was having no authority to appoint anybody or to remove anybody. He had no power to sanction anybody's leave and had no authority to initiate any disciplinary action against any of the workman . He had no authority to sign any Bank account on behalf of the 1st Party and had no authority to withdraw the amount for Ist Party. He was not Constituted Attorney of the 1st party. His principle duties were of technical and operational in nature and there was no even a stinct of supervisory duties as far as his duties were concerned. He was working as per the instructions received by him from his superiors . False allegations were levelled against him . Farce of enquiry was made by the 1st Party. Enquiry Officer was bias . Other employee by name Rane , though was served with similar type of Charge sheet like 2nd Party Workman, Jain, he was never placed under suspension like 2nd Party Workman . At that particular time Apex Court treated 1st Party not an Industry. So employee did not attend Inquiry. Later Apex Court decided otherwise and observed Ist Party as an Industry. The finding given by the Enquiry Officer are perverse . The punishment of "compulsory retirement " of 2nd Party Workman is nothing but terminating his employment at the age of 52 years as retirement age with the 1st Party is upto 60 years. So it is submitted that, action taken by First Party in retiring compulsory Second Party Workman by order dated 9th July, 1999 is nothing but terminating him from employment be set aside with the directions to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity of service.

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceeding are as under :

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L - 40012 / 32/2000 /IR (DU ) dated 30th May, 2000 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, have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudicaiton:

"Whether the action of the Management of Telecom Factory, now taken over by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Deonar , in terminating the services of Sh . A.H. Jain is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. By filing the Statement of Claim, at Exhibit 6, the 2nd Party Workman and General Secretary of the Rashtriya Telecom Employees & Workers Union, submit

3. This prayer is disputed by the First Party by filing exhaustive reply at Exhibit 7 stating and contending that , reference is not tenable as subject- matter of the Reference " Compulsory Retirement" does not fall within the purview of Section under which the Competent Authority send the Reference for adjudication. It was not the termination. It is further stated that, 2nd Party Workman by name ' Jain ' is not the Workman and as such on that count also Reference is not tenable . It is also contended that , subject- matter of the Reference "Compulsory Retirement " does not fall under the definition of " Termination " . This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give verdict on compulsory retirement . Besides , this it is contended that , charge sheet was served on Second Party Workman. Full opportunity was givento 2nd Party Workman ' Jain' to participate in the 6451 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

Reasons;

Issue No. 1

enquiry. Enquiry Officer was having foundation to give finding against the 2nd Party Workman. Even the punishment awarded by the Enquiry Officer of termination was reviewed by the Appellate Authority and leniency was shown . In the appeal , 2nd Party was permitted to retire by which he got all retirement benefits i.e. gratuity, Pension , Provident Fund etc. If at all , he would have been terminated , he could not have got those benefits and as such relief was given to the Second Party Workman by asking him to retire compulsorily.

4. It is further stated that, 20 persons were working under him. He is getting his salary more than Rs . 10,000/-. He has control over the 20 workers under him . He was signing their muster, attendance.and sanctioning their leave . He committed serious offence like 'forgery' which is of very serious nature . Such charges were levelled and proved against him . Though opportunity was given but he did not utilize it and did not participate in the enquiry as decision to retire 2nd Party Workman, Jain, was taken after conducting enquiry, now 2nd Party Workman , Jain , cannot challenge it as subject-matter of "compulsory retirement" does not fall withinthejurisdiction of this Tribunal . Reference is send presuming that 2nd Party Workman is terminated. Actually said punishment of termination was reviewed byAppellate Authority and he was compulsorily retired. In fact decision of the 1st Party is of compulsory retirement. It ought to have been challenged by 2nd Party. Since the punishment of termination does ot subsists , reference send under said guise be rejected as Tribunal cannot travel beyond subject-matter of 'Termination' and give verdict on compulsory retirement.

5. In view of the above pleadings Issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor at Exhibit 12. Out ofthose Issue Nos . 1 , 2, 4 and 5 i.e. regarding latches in the Reference and Status of 2nd Party as a ' workman ' along with the point of fairness of enquiry and perversity of the findings are there . Those are answered as follows :

Issues

Findings

6. The reference sent by the Desk Officer , Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , under sub -Clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is disputed by the First Party alleging that , since 2nd Party Workman involved in the reference by name Jain was not terminated but was asked to retire from the services of the 1st Party by way of order of compulsory retirement . Subject - matter of the reference is , 'compulsory retirement ' of Jain , the workman, and the not the ' termination' . When he is not terminated 2nd Party cannot challenge it. On the ' termination'appeal was referred by 2nd Pary before Compètent Authority and after reconsidering the grievances made by the 2nd Party Workman, Jain, the order of ' termination' was converted into " compulsory retirement " . Accordingto 1st Party there is difference in ' termination ' and ' compulsory retirement ' In the termination employee cannot get benefits ofgratuity and other retirement benefits whereas employee who retires gets all other benefits including gratuity, Provident Fund and even can work anywhere since there is no stigma of termination and difference is there between ' termination ' and ' compulsory retirement ' . The subject-matter of the reference though worded as the ' termination' actually it is a ' compulsory retirement ' and there was no termination inflicted by 1st Party as referred by the Competent Authority when there is no termination effected on 2nd Party Workman by 1st Party reference , is not tenable and the said reference suffers from latches and therefore not maintainable . Whereas 2nd Party Workman's argument is that, there is no much difference between ' termination' and 'compulsory retirement' . Result of both is one and the same i.e. services of the employees comes to an end with the employer. By both these terms the employees and employers relationships comes to an end and it does not exists . When both gives same result and effect i.e. bring full stop in the employment between employer and employee . Even retirement should be read in that sprit of the termination as it gives same result as secured in the termination. Besides , it is submitted that, Section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads asunder :

1. Whether the reference suffers from latches and therefore not maintainable as averred in para 1 of the Written Statement (Exhibit 7) ?

yes

2. Whether Shri A.H. Jain is a 'workman' under Section 2 (s) of the Industiral Dispute Act ?

"2 (A) : Dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute : Where any employer discharges , dismisses , retrenches or otherwise terminates the services off an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with 3. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as per the Principles of Natural Justice?

Yes

shall be deemed to be an Industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute." 4. Whether the findings of the inquiry officer are Perverse?

6452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] According tohim the retirement made by 1st Party of2nd Party Workman Jain involved in this reference fall under category of " otherwise terminating the services of the individual " and dispute raised by the 2nd Party Workman purely fall under Section 2(A) of Industrial Disputes Act.

actually there was no termination, and it is not in dispute that, by virtue of replacement of order of compulsory retirement inplace of termination, Reference on the point of termination does not subsist and survives . But as stated above I do not find any different between punishment of ' compulsory retirement ' and punishment of ' termination' , as result of both is one and the same . Both brings end of employment of 2nd Party Workman and it ceases his relations with the 1st Party. In my considered view, though reference is sent of termination the subject matter of ' compulsory retirement ' falls under definition 2 (A) under " otherwise termination " and definitely can be entertained by this Tribunal on the basis of the reference sent by the Competent Authority. So I conclude that, the reference does not suffer from any latches as pointed out by the First Party. So I answer this Issue in the negative .

ISSUE NO. 2

8. This reference is challenged by the 1st Party again on one more point stating that , Jain is not a Workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of Industrial Disputes Act . He was working as a Chargeman . His work and designation does not permit him to call as a Workman and fall under Section 2 ( s) of Industrial Disputes Act. The duties casted upon on him, the work done by him, designation given to and role played by him does not permit Jain to claim as a Workman . Whereas case made out by the Second Party is that, though he is designated as a Chargeman his 70% work is of manual nature . He was getting salary of Rs . 10,000 . He was having no authority to appoint . anybody, neither having any authority to terminate. He was having no power to recommend or sanction any leave . He was having no authority to initiate any disciplinary action against any workman. He was not signing accounts for the 1st Party. Even he was not making any correspondence under his signature for Ist Party. His principle duties were of technical and operational in nature and there was no even stinct of supervisory duties as far as his duties are concerned.

9. To see whether Second Party Workman Jain is a Workman or otherwise , we have to see the definition of Workman given under Section 2 ( s ) of Industrial Disputes Act, which reads as follows :

"2 (s): "workman" means any person (including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled, technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed , discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a 7. It is a matter of record that , 2nd Party Workman's services were terminated and when said punitive action was converted by the 1st Party into "compulsory retirement" it is a matter of record that 2nd PartyWorkman was compulsorily retired at the age of 52 years when the retirement age in the 1st Party is 60 years. It is not pointed out by the 1st Party in what way S.P. Jain was benefited by converting punishment of termination into compulsory retirement and how it was lesser punishment than the punishment of termination. As suggested and pointed out by 2nd Party's Advocate compulsory retirement cannot be considered less than termination as the result of both is one and the same i.e. of an end of the relations between the employer and employee and it gives full stop to it. It is tried to suggest by 1st Party that, as a result of compulsory retirement, 2nd Party Workman was benefited and definitely said benefits were enjoyed by the Second Party Workman than the punitive action of termination. However, it is not pointed out in what way second Party was benefited by awarding punishment of compulsory retirement that, too at the age of 52 years , when retirement age was 60 years ? When no such benefits are shown by the 1st Party which might have accrued by the 2nd Party Workman as a result of " retirement " " than by termination " as pleaded by 1st party I am of the considered view that, one cannot find such a difference as tried to be made out by the 1st Party as far as employment of the 2nd Party Workman Jain with the 1st Party is concerned. According to me , simple reason behind is that, as a result of ' compulsory retirement' at the age of 52, he lost his employment like effecting 'termination' of his employment . Besides this , it tried to point out by 1st Party that, enquiry proceedings and Conciliation proceedings were going on parallelly when notice was served and enquiry was initiated . After suspending Second Party Workman Jain , 2nd Party Workman and Union raised dispute before ALC and as and when enquiry was in progress Second Party Workman did not bother to attend the enquiry and lost opportunity of recording the evidence and enquiry officer gave finding holding 2nd Party Workman guilty of the charges and suggested termination. That , was challengedbefore Conciliation of Officer and at the same time Appeal was preferred by the Second Party before the Competent Authority to reduce the punishment, the punishment of termination suggested by the Enquiry Officer was converted into compulsory retirement . Meanwhile reference came regarding termination. When 6453 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

conséquence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-

(1) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957) , or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(iv) who , being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature ."

From this definition one find, number of inclusions and exclusions are given to call as a ' workman' and to bring out employee out of the definition of ' workman' . The definition reproduced above says that, any person including apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled , technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work is called as a ' workman' . The employee who is appointed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him , functions mainly of a managerial nature is not a workman.

10. To support the case of Workman he placed reliance on the evidence recorded by way of affidavit at Exhibit 15 as well as on the cross of the Management witness whose evidences are Exhibit 23 and 28. 2nd Party placed reliance on number of citations submitted with written synopsis at Exhibit 31 & 32. Whereas 1st Party placed reliance on above referred evidence and citations submitted alongwith synopsis at Exhibit 36.

though he was designated as ' Chargeman ' nature of his duties were of similar nature i.e. of ' workman' . According to him 70% his duties were of manual and 30% were of clerical type and reiterated that , he had no power to appoint, terminate anybody, no power to sanction leave and was not taking part in the decision making process ofthe 1st Party. He is a trade Union leader , look after the activities of the Rashtriya Telecom Employees and Workers Union. He was charge sheeted alleging that, he left the work place without permission and without preparing gate pass on 12-2-1997 and for that, he was charge sheeted . In the cross this witness admits , he maintained Head Mistry's note book. He admits that, he attends the complaints which he received . However, he denies that , he gave directions to workmen working under him . He also denies that, he was giving certificates to the Workmen working under him regarding over time. He also denies that , he sign documents as supervisor . He admits that , he passed departmental tests like English , Arthematic and Geometry. He also admits that , he passed trade tests . Whereas Ist Party placed evidence on record by examining Mr. B. Sahu at Exhibit 23 reveals that , concerned employee Jain was working under him . He admits that , he was required to do some clerical work . He admits that he has no authority to appoint anybody or remove anybody. He states that , Jain has no authority to sign leave or recommend leave or transfer anybody . Even he admits that, Jain has no authority to issue charge sheet against any employee . He admits that, Assistant Engineer is the Head of the Department in which Jain was working . The witness examines Exhibit 28 by name P.K. Pawar admits that, he has no personal knowledge regarding day to day duties of Jain. He also admits that, last designation of Jain is Charge man . That means , beyond that , Jain cannot be promoted and on that, Jain claim that , it was his departmental promotion . So all , this evidence reveals that, 2nd Party Workman Jain though designated as "Charge man " , has no other status than , that of a 'Workman' by the said designation. He does not attract any other benefits or other meaning than what is to the workman. Besides , Ld . Advocate for the Second Party placed reliance on number of citations . Citation published in 1964 1 LLJ page 19, Apex Court while deciding the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. v/ s Chacko observed that if a person occupy post like this by way of promotion , cannot cease his status of ' workman' . Another citiation published in 1991 2 CLR Page 789 where our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of R.M. Nerlekar v/ s The Chlef Commercial Superintendent, Central Railway observed that, looking at the nature of the duties described in the evidence one has to ascertain the status of the employee . Even the employee working as a Commercial Inspector in Railway is treated as a Workman . Here lied on another citation published in 1981 LAB . I.C. page 40 and while deciding 11. In the evidence referreed above 2nd Party claim that, he does not have the power to sanction leave or recommend leave. Ist Party witness states that, he has no power to appoint or terminate anybody or initiate enquiry proceedings against anybody. It is proved that, he cannot write letters on behalf of the First Party and his decision is not binding on First Party. In evidence, the case of the 2nd Party is that, he not considered as a decision making person in the 1st Party's establishment and his opinion is not sought while taking any decision. It is the matter of record that, initially he joined as an Electrician in 1968 and went upto the post of 'Chargeman' on salary ofRs. 10,000. According to him

2057 GI/2006-22 6454

[PART II--SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

enquiry was conducted which was fair and proper. He was given opportunity to defend his case . However, here fused to participate in the enquiry. It is denied that , Enquiry Officer had predetermined mind to hold him guilty. 2nd party Workman Jain attended enquiry but stayed away from it with ulterior motive to challenge the action taken by the 1st party to suit his purpose .

the case of M/s . Vasant Industrial and Engineering Works v/ s . Narayan Damodar Desai and anr. Our Hon'ble High Court observed that, person working on the post of Foreman , though his duties were of supervisory but are not of managerial nature as well as administrative nature and as such, such employee fall under definition of Section 2( s) of Industrial Disputes Act , our Hon'ble High Court while deciding case of Bombay Dying manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs R.A. Bidoo & ors . Published in 1989 II CLR p . 248 observed that, Workman initially joined as Camera Operator and then he became Assistant Master in Screen making Department , without obtaining any degree cannot cross the status of Workman . Citation published in 1988 LAB IC р. 384, while deciding the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v/s Kishan Bhageria and ors . It is observed that , employee working as Intemal Auditor in Company and checking the work on behalf of the employer, still is the ' workman ' under Section 2 (s ) of Industrial Disputes Act, Citation published in 1984 LAB IC 658 Ved Prakash Gupta v/s . M/s. Delton Cable India (P) Ltd. Apex Court observed that, person employed in Managerial or Administrative capacity are excluded from he definition of ' workman ' . In citation published in 1994 II LLN p . 559 our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of Inter Globe Air Transport, A Division of inter Glob Enterprises (Pvt .) Ltd. vs Smt . Leela Deshpande and anr. Observed that , mere fact that, some control over other clerks is given to employee to supervise their work, mere power of allocation of work between employees is not sufficient to exclude that , employee from the definition of the Workman . The citation published in 1995 I CLR page 837 our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of S.A. Sarang vs W.G. Forge & Allied Industries Ltd. observed that , employee initially join as a Workman can take shelter of Section 2(s ) to claim as a ' workman ' . Citation published in 1998 II LLJ p . 176 (Cricket Club of India and anr. vs. Baljit Shyam (Ms) & anr.) Tried to make difference between ' administrative ' and ' supervisory' functions and observed that, mere recommendation of leave , employee does not become Supervisor. So considering all this coupled with number of citations referred above , I conclude that, the status of 2nd party Workman jain cannot be more than status of ' workman ' ; and as such Jain the aggrieved person is the ' workman ' and he purely fall under definition of Section 2(s ) of industrial Disputes Act . So I answer this issue to that effect.

ISSUE NO . 3 AND 4 .

12. 2nd Party claims that , enquiry was not conducted by following principles of natural justice . Infact original enquiry proceedings are not placed on record to substantiate the case of the Ist party that, enquiry was conducted and it was fair and proper . Whereas case made out by the First party is that ,

13. In that light if we peruse the record place on record regarding enquiry, we find, the original enquiry proceeding is not placed on record , Xerox copy of the enquiry proceeding is placed on record with Exhibit 13 from page Nos . 1 to 66. If we peruse those we find by letters dated 17th January, 1998 , 3rd February, 1998 , 1st April , 1998 and 3rd April , 1998 2nd Party Workman Jain informed that, he is not attending the enquiry since the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to First Party MTNL since it is not listed as and industry within the meaning of Section 3 (j ) of Industrial Disputes Act . As far as this position is concerned, it is not disputed even by Ist Party, as above letters are referred from the documents filed by the 1st Party at Exhibit 13 . Then 2nd party submit that , since Apex Court observed that, First Party MTNL is not an industry by its earlier Judgment, there was no point to appear in the enquiry by the 2nd party Workman Jain . However, later on Apex Court reversed the said view and observed that, First party is an " Industry " . Initially in the guise that, Ist Party is not an industry during that, particular period, as per the decision of Apex Court , there was no point to contest the enquiry proceedings . Even by placing citations published in 1998 I CLR p . 184 the Advocate for 2nd Party submitted that , while deciding the case of General Manager, Telecom vs S. Srinivasan & ors . Apex Court held that, the view taken in case of Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees ' Association v/s Union of India- 1997 II CLR page 218-and view taken in case of Sub - Divisional Inspector of Post , Vaikam & ors . v/s Theyyam Joseph & ors . 1996 II CLR page 237 cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. Even this position is not disputed by 1st Party . Above referred correspondence reveals that, Second Party did not participate in the enquiry under that, guise. Since in 1998 Apex Court observed that, 1st Party is also an industry, record and proceedings reveal that, meanwhile, enquiry was completed on 30th August , 1998 itself and Show Cause notice was served on 21-10-1998 . Then on 6-11-1998, as well as by correspondence dated 27-11-1998 and as per arguments advanced by the 2nd Party, that his removal order was issued by letter dated 24-12-1998 . So all this reveals that, enquriy as expected , was not conducted against Second Party Workman . Even no opportunity was availed by the 2nd Party Workman Jain on the guise that, there was no point in taking part in the enquiry, since 1st Party does fall under definition of ' Industry' of Section 2 (j ) of Industrial Disputes Act .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6455

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Now, it is clear that, 1st Party is ' an industry' . So in the said set of circumstances definitely Second Party must get an opportunity to participate in the enquiry . As per the enquiry record . at present which is on record, cannot be called and enquiry conducted by following the principles of natural justice . Even dates of enquiry reveals that, it was initiated on 26-9-1997 and finding was given on 30-7-1998 . Even it is a matter of record that, enquiry was ex-parte and that fact is not disputed by Ist party also . Stand taken by First Party is that , though opportunity was given to the Second party it did not avail it and in that, set of circumstances it had no option but to proceed against 2nd Party Workman ex -parte has to consider in favour of 2nd party. So this itself reveals that, enquiry was an ex- parte enquiry on the basis of which first decision was taken of termination and that,was converted into compulsory retirement . The decision taken by the Ist party in above both forms was of very serious nature as by that, services of the Second party Workman ' Jain' comes to an end and their relations of employee and employer also comes to and end. So in my considered view, such and action which istaken relying on this type of ex -parte enquiry must be considered minutely as , on the basis of the said enquiry, 1st Party decided to relieve Second Party, from its employment and then compelled him to retire . So for the 1st Party finding of the enquiry was the base to take such a decision . So in my considered view such enquiry cannot be treated as good in the eye of law and it require to declared not conducted by following principles of natural justice and proper procedure of the enquiry. Besides, one has to declare that, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer on such ex - parte basis has also no ground . So I conclude that enquiry was not fair and proper and the finding perverse . Accordingly I answer this issue to that effect .

14. In view of the above discussions carried above I conclude that, the 2nd Party is the ' Workman' . Besides I conclude that , ordering 2nd Party Workman Jain's ' removal' from the employment and then converting it into ' compulsory retirement' from service does not come in the way of the Seeond Party to challenge the same under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act as it is an industrial dispute . I also conclude that enquiry was not fair and proper and finding taken on such an enquiry was perverse, as there was no base before the Enquiry Officer to conclude accordingly. So I pass the following order:

ORDER

a) Second Party is declared as a ' Workman' , b) the reference does not suffer from latches and reference is maintainable ;

c) enquiry is not fair and proper and finding is perverse ;

d) 1st Party is directed to lead evidence to prove the charges levelled against the Second Party Workman by appearing on 29th June , 2006 .

Mumbai

18th May, 2006 .

A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer, नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2821.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इन्फोर्मेटिक्स सेन्टर एण्ड सी.पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 283/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-42012/16/99- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2821. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 283/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Informatics Centre and C. P.W.D. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-42012/16/99- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESHWAR

PRESENT:

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra,

Presiding Officer, CGIT -cum - labour Court, Bhubaneshwar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 283/2001 Date of passing Award-24th May 2006 BETWEEN

1. The Management of the Director,

National Informatics Centre, Sachivalaya Marg, Unit- IV, Bhubaneshwar- 751 001 .

2. The Executive Engineer, (Electrical), C.P.W.D. Central Electrical Division, Bhubaneshwar- 751 012

..... 1st Party-Managements .

6456

AND

Their Workman, Shri Rahas Bihari Mallick,

Plot No. 562 , Nayapalli , Kabari Sahi , Madhusudan Nagar, Bhubaneshwar-751 001 .

.....2nd Party Workman APPEARANCES

ForManagement No.1 M/s U.N. Samal , Advocate :

For Management No. 2.

M/sSubhasish Das , : Advocate

For 2nd Party Workman .

M/ s . N.K. Mishra , :

Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, 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 ) have referred the followingdispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42012/ 16/99 - IR ( DU ) , dated 26-07-1999:-

"Whether the action of the Director , NIC and Executive Engineer ( Electrical ) , CPWD , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Rahas Bihari Mallick is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. The facts admitted by all parties are as follows:-

The National Informatics Centre (Management No.1 ) is an establishment of the Central Government. The office of C.P.W.D. ( Management No. 2) used to call for tenders periodically and appoint different Contractors item- wise to operate and maintain the A.C. Plant and other allied equipments of the Management No.1 .

3. It is alleged by the workman that in January 1987 he was engaged as an A.C. Operator by the then Contractor named Venu Gopal Rao. After the tenure of the said contractor he continued as such under the succeeding contractors engaged from time to time by the C.P.W.D. (Management No.2 ) As the job of NIC (Management No. 1 ) was perennial in nature himself and similar other workers engaged by different other contractors to work within the premises of NIC formed a union and demanded for their regularization some times in 1997. The INTUC also espoused their cause for permanent absorption . It is alleged by the workman that because of the above both the Managements took a Jointstrategy and did not issue gate passes to them with effect from 1-4-1998 with the pretext that the contractor engaged had not come forward to renew the contract for the next term commencing from 1-4-1998 . It is further alleged that after engagement of a new contractor M/s . Blue Star with effect from 1-5-1998 they though worked as usual under him they were not paid their wages from May 1998 to Sept. 1998 and ultimately refused

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

employment with effect from 23-9-1998 without any prior notice or notice pay.

4. The Management of NIC (Management No.1 ) has averred that for the operation and maintenance of its A.C. Plant and it's alleged equipments the C.P.W.D. was engaged and therefore the NIC is least concerned with the workman and others engaged by the C.P.W.D. or any other contractor for the above purpose . In other words it is averred that for maintenance of the A.C. Plant the C.P.W.D. was being paid maintenance cost annually not bothering about the mode to be adopted by the C.P.W.D. and therefore , the N.1.C. is nothing to do with the termination of the workman or any other workmen engaged either by the C.P.W.D. or by the contractors .

5. It is further averred that after the computerization of the A.C. Plant and other allied electrical equipments there was no necessity of entrusting the maintenance work to the C.P.W.D. and therefore the earlier practice of entrusting the work to the CPWD was given a complete go bye in later years and therefore the N.I.C. is not liable for the so called termination of the workman .

6. The C.P.W.D. (Management No.2 ) who was admittedly entrusted with the operational and maintenance work of the A.C. Plant of the N.I.C. has taken a stand that for execution of the above entrusted work it used to engage from time to time different contractor selected on tender basis . These contractors were simply asked to execute the work as per the specification and terms and conditions as contained in their agreement and therefore , there was least scope for the C.P.W.D. To know about the workers engaged by these contractors . According to it one M/s . Utkal Refrigeration had taken the job contract from 4/88 onwards up till 3/98 (except for the short period from 4/89 to 9/89 ) and then M/s . Blue Star Limited took the contract from 5/98 onwards . But the said contractor was not allowed by the workman and others to engage his own workers until the intervention of police in Sept. 1998 . In other words it is claimed by the C.P.W.D. with necessary implication that when the new contractor M/s . Blue Star did not engage the workman & others the present dispute was raised as if they were refused employment by both C.P.W.D. & N.I.C. and thus the case is not maintain able against them .

7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed. ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

2. Whether the action of the Director , NIC and Executive Engineer (Electrical ) , CPWD, Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Rahas Bihari Mallick is legal and justified?

3. If not , what relief the workman is entitled?

6457 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

8. To establish their respective cases each party has examined one witness besides producing some documents .

ISSUE No. 2 & 3

9. These issues are taken up jointly as they are inter-dependant .

Division) , Bhubaneswar to prevent the said new contractor from engaging his own workers . Ext. -E further discloses that after the engagement of the above new contractor the workman and his other colleagues forcibly tried to work as before and thereby created problem for the said contractor. As a result, the matter was reported to the police vide Ext-E. The evidence on record further shows that because of the above disturbance the new contractor could not taken up the work until October 1998.

10. Thus from the above admitted facts it is clear that neither the N.I.C. nor the C.P.W.D. was the employer of the workman. The workman was rather an employee of the earlier contractor who was succeeded by M/s . Blue Star. As neither of these contractors are in picture the non-engagement of the workman by M/s . Blue Star can not be termed as an act of refusal of employment either by NIC or C.P.W.D. The entire gamut of the case speak that the workman was never an employee under N.I.C. or the C.P.W.D. and there was no employee employer relationship between them and as such for the act of the contractor M/ s . Blue Star in refusing to engage the workman can not be coloured as an act of Management No.1 and 2 and as such there is no merit in the reference .

ISSUE No. L.

11. The law is well settled that the terms of reference must be more specific about the alleged date of termination and any mistake or omission made in this regard would render the reference bad . In the instant case a similar mistake is noticed in as much as the reference is silent about the date of alleged termination. On this count the reference is also held as not maintainable .

12. For the various discussions made in the fore- going paras there is no other go except to hold that there is no merit in the case as also in the reference.

13. Before parting with the award I would like to make it clear that there is serious lack of coherence between the real claim of the workman raised before the Conciliation Officer and the terms of reference . While the said claim of the workman was for his regularization the reference has been made circumbently on some other count leaving sufficient scope for a comment.

14. Accordingly the reference is answered in negation. Dictated & Corrected by me.

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2822.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इन्फोमेटिक्स सेन्टर एण्ड सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध In his evidence the workman claims that since 1987 till the alleged date of termination in 1998 he was working as an A.C. operator being appointed by C.P.W.D. (Management No.2) to operate and maintain daily the A.C. plant and its other allied electrical equipments of the establishment of the N.I.C. (Management No.1 ) . According to his evidence his above engagement was never through any contractor but then the C.P.W.D. used to show him being engaged by some sham contractors from time to time . But such of the evidence of the workman is found contrary to his stand taken in his claim statement. In the claim statement ithas categorically been mentioned that during the above period he used to work under different contractors engaged by the C.P.W.D. from time to time. During cross examination he has also admitted that in 1987 he was engaged by a sub-contractor named Venugopal Nair and the said contractor used to pay his wages in presence of Junior Engineer of C.P.W. D. He further, stated during cross examination that all along he worked under the above sub-contractor till he was refused admission in to the NIC premises on 23-9-1998 . The subject matter of Μ.Α. 190/98 (Ext. -D) and Misc. case No. 136/98 (Ext. -E) which the workman and many others had respectively filed before the Central Administration Tribunal and Civil judge ( JD) , Bhubaneswar show that after forming and Association these cases were filed claiming regularization in the establishment of both the Managements . The stand taken in these cases shows that the workman and other by claiming themselves as contract labourers had filed these cases in an effort to get themselves regularized. The reading of the above judgement further indicates that INTUC had also espoused the above claims of the workman in an in vain bid to regularize them. The evidence on record especially the judgement in M.A. 190/98 ( Ext . -D) shows that when no contractor came forward totake up the work ofNIC after expiry of the earlier contract on 30-11-1997 the C.P. W.D. Intimated such fact to N.I.C. with a request not to issue gate passes to the workers until appointment of a new contractor. This generated an apprehension amongst the workers that they are likely to be retrenched and therefore they filed the above noted M.A. 190/98 . Thereafter when a new contractor M/ s . Blue Star was engaged from1-5-1998 the said contractor instead of engaging the workers of the out-going contractor tried to engage his own . As a result the workman and others who were working under the previous contractor filed Misc . Case No. 136/98 before the Civil Judge (Jr.

6458

नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 284/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -42012/18/99 - आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2822. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 284/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Informatics Centre and C. P.W.D. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-42012/ 18/99 - IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESHWAR

PRESENT :

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneshwar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 284/2001 Date of passing Award -22nd May, 2006

BETWEEN

1. The Management of the Director, National Informatics Centre , Sachivalaya Marg , Unit- IV, Bhubaneshwar- 751001 .

2. The Executive Engineer, (Electrical), C.P.W.D. Central Electrical Division, Bhubaneshwar- 751012

1st Party-Managements .

AND

Their Workman, Shri Bijaya Kumar Panda, Ex-A.C.Operator at NIC, At./Po . Rental Colony, Bhubaneshwar- 751001 .

..... 2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

M/ s . U.N. Samal , Advocate . : For Management No.1

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

M/s Subhashish Das , For Management No. 2 . Advocate.

For2nd Party -Workman.

M/ s . N.K. Mishra , Advocate, :

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, 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) have referred the followingdispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42012/ 18 /99 - IR (DU) , dated 26-07-1999 :-

"Whether the action of the Director , NIC and Executive Engineer (Electrical ) , CPWD , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Bijaya Kumar Panda is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2. The facts admitted by all parties are as follows:-

The National Informatics Centre (Management No.1 ) is an establishment of the Central Government . The office of C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) used to call for tenders periodically and appoint different Contractors item-wise to operate and maintain the A.C. Plant and other allied equipments of the Management No.1.

3. It is alleged by the workman that in May 1992 he was engaged as an A.C. Operator by the then Contractor named Venu Gopal Rao . After the tenure of the said contractor he continued as such under the succeeding contractors engaged from time to time by the C.P.W.D. (Management No.2) As the job of NIC (Management No.1 ) was perennial in nature himself and similar other workers engaged by different other contractors to work within the premises of NIC formed aUnion and demanded for their regularization some times in 1997. The INTUC also espoused their cause for permanent absorption. It is alleged by the workman that because of the above both the Managements took a Joint strategy and did not issue gate passes to them with effect from 1-4-1998 with the pretext that the contractor engaged had not come forward to renew the contract for the next term commencing from 1-4-1998 . It is further alleged that after engagement of a new contractor M/s . Blue Star with effect from 1-5-1998 they though worked as usual under him they were not paid their wages from May 1998 to Sept. 1998 and ultimately refused employment with effect from 23-9-1998 without any prior notice or notice pay.

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

it is averred that for maintenance of the A.C. Plant the C.P.W.D. was being paid maintenance cost annually not bothering about the mode to be adopted by the C.P.W.D. and therefore the N.I.C. is nothing to do with the termination of the workman or any other workmen engaged either by the C.P.W.D. or by the contractors .

6. The C.P.W.D. ( Management No.2) who was admittedly entrusted with the operational and maintenance work of the A.C. Plant of the N.I.C. has taken a stand that for execution of the above entrusted work it used to engage from time to time different contractor selected on tender basis . These contractors were simply asked to execute the work as per the specification and terms and conditions as contained in their agreement and therefore , there was least scope for the C.P.W.D. To know about the workers engaged by these contractors . According to it one M/ s . Utkal Refrigeration had taken the job contract from 4/88 onwards up till 3/98 ( except for the short period from 4/89 to 9/89 and then M/ s . Blue Star Limited took the contract from 5/98 onwards . But the said contractor was not allowed by the workman and others to engage his own workers until the intervention of police in Sept. 1998. In other words it is claimed by the C.P.W.D. with necessary implication that when the new contractor M/s . Blue Star did not engage the workman & others the present dispute was raised as if they were refused employment by both C.P.W.D. & N.I.C. and thus the case is not maintainable against them .

7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed .

ISSUES

1 . Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the action of the Director, NIC and Executive Engineer (Electrical) , CPWD,

Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Bijaya Kumar Panda is legal and justified?

3. If not, what relief the workman is entitled?

8. To establish their respective cases each party has examined one witness besides producing some documents.

ISSUE No. 2 & 3

9. These issues are taken up jointly as they are inter-dependant.

In his evidence the workman claims that since 1992 till the alleged date of termination in 1998 he was working as an A.C. operator being appointed by C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) to operate and maintain daily the A.C. plant and its other allied electrical equipments of the establishment of the N.I.C. (Management No.1) . According to his evidence his above engagement was never through any contractor but then the C.P.W.D. used to show him being engaged by some sham contractors from time to time. But such of the evidence of the workman is found contrary to his stand taken in his claim statement. In the claim statement ithas categorically been mentioned that during the above period he used to work under different contractors 'engaged by the C.P.W.D. from time to time . During examination he has also admitted that in 1992 he was engaged by a sub-contractor named Venugopal Nair and the said contractor used to pay his wages in presence ofJunior Engineer of C.P.W. D. He further , stated during cross -examination that all along he worked under the above sub- contractor till he was refused admission in to the NIC premises on 23-9-1998 . The subject matter of M.A. 190/98 ( Ext . - D) and Misc . case No. 136/98 (Ext . E) which the workman and many others had respectively filed before the Central Administration Tribunal and Civil judge (JD) , Bhubaneswar show that after forming and Association these cases were filed claiming regularization in the establishment of both the Managements . The stand taken in these cases shows that the workman and other by claiming themselves as contract labourers had filed these cases in an effort to get themselves regularized. The reading of the above judgement further indicates that INTUC had also espoused the above claims of the workman in an in vain bid to regularize them. The evidence on record especially the judgement in M.A. 190/98 ( Ext. -D) shows that when no contractor came forward to take up the work of NIC after expiry of the earlier contract on 30-11-1997 the C.P.W.D. Intimated such fact to N.I.C. with a request not to issue gate passes to the workers until appointment of a new contractor. This generated an apprehension amongst the workers that they are likely to be retrenched and therefore they filed the above noted M.A. 190/98 . Thereafter when a new contractor M/ s . Blue Star was engaged from1-5-1998 the said contractor instead of engaging the workers of the out-going contractor tried to engage his own . As a result the workman and others whowere working under the previous contractor filed Misc . Case No. 136/98 before the Civil judge ( Jr. Division) , Bhubaneswar to prevent the said new contractor from engaging his own workers . Ext. E further discloses that after the engagement of the above new contractor the workman and his other colleagues forcibly tried to work as before and thereby created problem for the said contractor. As a result, the matter was reported to the police vide Ext . - E The evidence on record further 6460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

shows that because of the above disturbance the new contractor could not taken up the work until October 1998 .

10. Thusfrom the above admitted facts it is clear that neither the N.I.C. nor the C.P.W.D. was the employer of the workman. The workman was rather an employee of the earlier contractor who was succeeded by M/s . Blue Star. As neither of these contractors are in picture the non-engagement of the workman by M/ s . Blue Star can not be termed as an act of refusal of employment either by N.I.C. or. C.P.W.D. The entire gamut of the case speak that the workman was never an employee under N.I.C. or the C.P.W.D. and there was no employee employer relationship between them and as such for the act of the contractor M / s . Blue Star in refusing to engage the workman can not be coloured as an act of Management No. 1 and 2 and as such there is no merit in the reference .

ISSUE NO . 1

11. The law is well settled that the terms of reference must be more specific about the alleged date oftermination and any mistake or omission made in this regard would render the reference bad. In the instant case a similar mistake is noticed in as much as the reference is silent about the date of alleged termination . On this count the reference is also held as not maintainable .

12. For the various discussions made in the fore- going paras there is no other go except to hold that there is no merit in the case as also in the reference .

14. Accordingly the reference is answered in negation. Dictated & Corrected by me .

N.K.R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2823.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947, (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इन्फोर्मेटिक्स सेन्टर एण्ड सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 271/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -42012/19/1999 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2823. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 271/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Informatics Centre and C.P.W.D. and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-42012/19/1999 IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR Present : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. - cum-Labour Court Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 271/2001 Date of Passing Award- 25th May, 2006

BETWEEN

1. The Management of the Director, National Informatics Centre , Sachivalaya Marg . Unit- IV, Bhubaneswar -751001 .

2. The Executive Engineer, ( Electrical ) , C.P.W.D. , Central Electrical Division , Bhubaneswar- 751012 . .... Ist Party -Managements

AND

Their Workman , Shri Arjun Ch . Bal , Ex . A.C. Operator, At . NIC , At . 40/44 , Baragarh Brit Colony, P.O. BJB Nagar, Bhubaneswar- 751001 .

.... IInd Party workman APPEARANCES :

M/ s . U.N. Samal , Advocate. : ForManagement No.1 .

M/ s. Subhasish Das , Advocate . : ForManagement No.2 M/ s . N.K. Mishra , Advocate.

.... For 2nd Party- Workman

AWARD

The Governmemt of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of Powers conferred by Clause (d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L -42012/ 19/99 - IR ( DU) , dated 19/21-07-1999 :-

"Whether the action of the Director, N.I.C. and Executive Engineer ( Electrical ) , C.P.W.D. , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Arjun Chandra Bal is legal and justified . ? If not, to what relief the workmna is entitled ? " 6461 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

2. The facts admitted by all parties are as follows :-

The National Informatics Centre (Management No.1 ) is an establishment of Central Government . The office of C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) used to call for tenders periodically and appoint different Contractors item-wise to operate and maintain the A.C. Plant and other allied equipments of the Management No. 1 .

the job contract from 4/88 onwards up till 3/98 (except for the short period from 4/89 to 9/89) and then M/s . Blue Star Limited took the contract from 5/98 onwards . But the said contractor was not allowed by the workman and others to engaged his own workers until the intervention ofpolice in Sept. 1998. In other words it is claimed by the C.P.W.D. with necessary implication that when the new contractor M /s . Blue Star did not engage the workman & others the present dispute was raised as if they were refused employment by both C.P.W.D. & N.I.C. and thus the case is not maintainable against them .

7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

2. Whether the action of Director, N.1.C. and Exeutive Engineer ( Electrical ), C.P.W.D. , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Arjun Chandra Bal is legal and justified?

3. If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?

8. To establish their respective cases each party has examined one witness besides producing some documents .

ISSUE NO . 2 & 3

9. These issues are taken up jointly as they are inter-dependant .

3. It is alleged by the workman that in May 1992 he was engaged as an A.C. Operator by the then Contractor named Venu Gopal Rao. After the tenure of the said contractor he continued as such under the succeeding contractors engaged from time to time by the C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2). As the job of N.1.C. (Management No. 1) was perennial in nature himself and similar other workers engaged by different other contractors to work with in the premises of N.1.C. formed a Union and demanded for their regularization sometimes in 1997. The INTUC also espoused their cause for permanent absorption . It is alleged by the workman that because of the above both the Management took a joint strategy and did not issue gate passes to them with effect from 1-4-1998 with the pretext that the contractor engaged had not come forward to renew the contract for the next term commencing from 1-4-1998 . It is further alleged that after engagement of a new contractgor M/s . Blue Star with effect from 1-5-1998 they though worked as usual under him they were not paid their wages from May 1998 to Sept. 1998 and ultimately. refused employment with effect from 23-9-1998 without any notice or notice pay.

4. The management of N.I.C. (Management No. 1 ) has averred that for the operation and maintenance of its A.C. Plant and it's alleged equipmetns the C.P.W.D. was engaged and therefore the N.I.C. is least concerned with the workman and others engagedby the C.P.W.D. or any other contractor for the above purpose . In other words it is averred that for maintenance of the A.C. Plant the C.P.W.D. was being paid maintenance cost annually not bothering about the mode to be adoped by the C.P.W.D.and therefore the N.1.C. is nothing to do with the termination of the workman or any other workmen engaged either by the C.P.W.D. or by the contractors .

5. It is further averred that after the computerization of the A.C. Plant and other allied electrical equipments there was no necessity of entrusting the maintenance work to the C.P.W.D. and therefore the earlier practice of entrusting the work to the C.P.W.D. was given a complete go bye in later years and therefore the N.1.C. is not liable for the so called termination of the workman .

In his evidence the workman claims that since 1992 till the alleged date of termination in 1998 he was working as an A.C. operator being appointed by C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) to Operate and maintain daily the A.C. Plant and its other allied electrical equipments of the establishment of the N.I.C. ( Management No.1 ) . According to his evidence his above engagement was never through any contractor but then the C.P.W.D. used to show him being engaged by some sham contractors from time to time . But such of the evidence of the workman is found contrary to his stand taken in his claim statement. In the claim statement it has categorically been mentioned that during the above period he usedto work under different contractors engaged by the C.P.W.D. from time to time. During cross examination he has also admitted that in 1992 he was engaged by a sub- contractor named Venugopal Nair and the said contractor used to pay his wages in presence of Junior Engineer of C.P.W.D. He further, stated during cross examination that all along he worked under the above sub - contractor till he was refused admission in to the N.1.C. premises on 23-9-1998 . The subject matter of M.A. 190/98 ( Ext. -D) and Misc. case No. 136/98 ( Ext . - E) which the workman and many others had respectively filed before the Central Administration Tribunal and Civil Judge ( JD) , Bhubaneswar show that after forming an Association these cases were filed claiming regularization in the establishment of both the Managements . The stand taken in these cases shows that the workman and others by claiming themselves as contract labourers had filed these cases in an effort to get themselves regularized. The reading of the above judgement further indicates that INTUC had also espoused the above claims of the 6. The C.P.W.D. ( Management No. 2) who was admittedly entrusted with the operational and maintenance work of the A.C. Plant of N.I.C has taken a stand that for execution of the above entrusted work it used to engage from time to time different contractor selected on tender basis. These contractors were simply asked to execute the work as per the specification and terms and conditions as contained in their agreement and therefore, there was least scope for the C.P.W.D. to know about the workers engaged by these contractors . According to it one M/ s . Utkal Refrigeration had taken

2057 GI/2006-23 6462

workman in an in vain bid to regularize them. The evidence on record especially the judgement in M.A. 190/98 ( Ext . - D) shows that when no contractor came forward to take up the work of NIC after expiry of the earlier contract on 30-11-1997 the C.P.W.D. intimated such fact to N.I.C. with a request not to issue gate passes to the workers until appointment of a new contractor. This generated an apprehension amongst the workers that they are likely to be retrenched and therefore they filed the above noted M.A. 190/98 . Thereafter when a new contractor M /s . Blue Star was engaged from 1-5-1998 the said contractor instead of engaging the workers of the out-going contractor tried to engage his own. As a result the workman and others who were working under the previous contractor filed Misc . Case No. 136/98 before the Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) . Bhubaneswar to prevent the said new contractor from engaging his own workers . Ext - E further discloses that after the engagement of the above new contractor the workman and his other colleagues forcibly tried to work as before and thereby created problem for the said contractor . As a result, the matter was reported to the police vide Ext.-E. The evidence on record further shows that because of the above disturbance the new contractor could not taken up the work until October 1998.

10. Thus from the above admitted facts it is clear that neither the N.I.C. nor the C.P.W.D. was the employer ofthe workman. The workman was rather an employee of the earlier contractor who was succeeded by M/s . Blue Star. As neither of these contractors are in picture the non- engagement of the workman by M/s . Blue Star cannot be termed as an act of refusal of employment either by NIC or C.P.W.D. The entire gamut of the case speak that the workman was never an employee under N.I.C. or the C.P.W.D. and there was no employee- employer relationship between them and as such for the act of the contractor M/s . Blue Star in refusing to engage the workman cannot be coloured as an act of Management Nos . 1 and 2 and as such there is no merit in the reference . ISSUE No. 1

11. The law is well - settled that the terms of reference must be more specific about the alleged date of termination and any mistake or omission made in this regard would render the reference bad. In the instant case a similar mistake is noticed in as much as the reference is silent about the date of alleged termination . On this count the reference is also held as not maintainable .

12. For the various discussions made in the fore- going paras there is no other go except to hold that there is no merit in the case as also in the reference .

13. Before parting with the award I would like to make it clear that there is serious lack of coherence between that real claim of the workman raised before the Conciliation Officer and the terms of reference . While the said claim of the workman was for his regularization the reference has been made circumbently on some other count leaving sufficient scope for a comment .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] negation. 14. Accordingly the reference is answered in Dictated & Corrected by me . N.K.R. MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2824.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इन्फोर्मेटिक्स सेन्टर एण्ड सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 269/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -42012/20/1999- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2824. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 269/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Informatics Centre and C.P.W.D. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L -42012/20/ 1999- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR Present : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum - Labour . Court , Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 269/2001 Date of Passing Award-22nd May, 2006 BETWEEN

1. The Management of the Director , National Informatics Centre , Sachivalaya Marg , Unit- IV, Bhubaneswar- 751001

2. The Executive Engineer (Electrical), C.P.W.D. , Central Electrical Division , Bhubaneswar - 751012 .... Ist Party-Managements

AND

Their Workman , Shri Dhirendra Kr. Tripathy. Ex . A/ C Operator , At . NIC, C/o . M/ s . Maxon Refrigeration , N1 /293 , IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar- 751001

....2nd Party-Workman APPEARANCES :

M/ s . U.N. Samal , Advocate : ForManagement No.1 M/ s . Subhasish Das , Advocate : For Management No. 2 M/s . N.K. Mishra , Advocate

.... For 2nd Party- Workman [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

6463 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

AWARD

earlier practice of entrusting the work to the C.P.W.D. was given a complete go bye in later years and therefore the N.I.C. is not liable for the so- called termination of the workman.

The Governmemt of India in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indistrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-42012/20/99 - IR(DU), dated 19/21-07-1999:-

"Whether the action of the Director, NIC and Executive Engineer ( Electrical) , CPWD , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Dhirendra Kumar Tripathy is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The facts admitted by all parties are as

follows:-

The National Informatics Centre (Management No. 1) is an establishment of the Central Government. The office of C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) used to call for tenders periodically and appoint different Contractors item-wise to operate and maintain the A. C. Plant and other allied equipments of the Management No. 1 .

6. The C.P.W.D. ( Management No. 2) who was admittedly entrusted with the operational and maintenance work of the A.C. Plant of N.I.C has taken a stand that for execution of the above entrusted work it used to engage from time to time different contractor selected on tender basis . These contractors were simply asked to execute the work as per the specification and terms and conditions as contained in their agreement and therefore, there was least scope for the C.P.W.D. to know about the workers engaged by these contractors . According to it one M/s . Utkal Refrigeration had taken thejob contract from 4/88 onwards up till 3/98 ( except for the short period from 4/89 to 9/89) and then M/s . Blue Star Limited took the contract from 5/98 onwards . But the said contractor was not allowed by the workman and others to engage his own workers until the intervention ofpolice in Sept. 1998. In other words it is claimed by the C.P.W.D. with necessary implication that when the new contractor M/ s . Blue Star did not engage the workman and others the present dispute was raised as if they were refused employment by both C.P.W.D. & N.I.C. and thus the case is not maintainable against them .

7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

"1. Whether the reference is maintainable?

2. Whether the action of Director, NIC and Executive Engineer ( Electrical ) , CPWD , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Dhirendra Kumar Tripathy is legal and justified?

3. If not, what relief the workman is entitled ? " 3. It is alleged by the workman that in May 1991 he was engaged as an A. C. Operator by the then Contractor named Venu Gopal Rao . After the tenure of the said contractor he continued as such under the succeeding contractors engaged from time to time by the C. P. W. D. (Management No. 2). As the job of NIC (Management No. 1) was perennial in nature himself and similar other workers engaged by different other contractors to work within the premises of NIC formed a Union and demanded for their regularization some times in 1997. The INTUC also espoused their cause for permanent absorption . It is alleged by the workman that because of the above both the Managements took a joint strategy and did not issue gate passes to them with effect from 1-4-1998 with the pretext that the contractor engagedhad not come forward to renew the contract for the next term commencing from 1-4-1998. It is further alleged that after engagement of a new contractor M/ s . Blue Star with effect from 1-5-1998 they though worked as usual under him they were not paid their wages froin May 1998 to Sept. 1998 and ultimately refused employment with effect from 23-9-1998 without any prior notice or notice pay.

8. To establish their respective cases each party has examined one witness besides producing some documents .

ISSUE NOS . 2 & 3

9. These issues are taken up jointly as they are inter-dependant .

4. The management of NIC (Management No. 1) has averred that for the operation and maintenance of its A.C. Plant and its alleged equipments the C.P.W.D. was engaged and there fore the NIC is least concerned with the workman and other engaged by the C.P.W.D. or and other contractor for the above purpose. In other words it is averred that for maintenance of the A.C. Plant the C.P.W.D. wasbeing paid maintenance cost annually not bothering about the mode to be adopted by the C.P.W.D. and therefore the N.I.C. is nothing to do with the termination of the workman or any other workmen engaged either by the C.P.W.D. or by the contractors.

5. It is further averred that after the computerization of A.C. Plant and other allied electrical equipments there was no necessity of entrusting the maintenance work to the C.P.W.D. and therefore the

In his evidence the workman claims that since 1991 till the alleged date of termination in 1998 he was working as an A.C. Operator being appointedby C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) to operate and maintain daily the A.C. Plant and its other allied electrical equipments of the establishment of the N.I.C. ( Management No. 1 ) . According to his evidence his above engagement was never through any contractor but then the C.P.W.D. used to show him being engaged by some sham contractors from time to time . But such of the evidence of the workman is found contrary to his stand taken in his claim [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

6464

ISSUE No. 1

11. The law is well settled that the terms of reference must be more specific about the alleged date oftermination and any mistake or omission made in this regard would render the reference bad. In the instant case a similar mistake is noticed in as much as the reference is silent about the date of alleged termination . On this count the reference is also held as not maintainable .

12. For the various discussions made in the fore- going paras there is no other go except to hold that there is no merit in the case as also in the reference .

negation. 14. Accordingly the reference is answered in

Dictate and Corrected by me . N.K.R MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2825.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इन्र्फोमेटिक्स सेन्टर एण्ड सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 285/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/17/1999- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006 statement . In the claim statement it has categorically been mentioned that during the above period he used to work under different contractors engaged by the C.P.W.D. from time to time . During cross examination he has also admitted that in 1991 he was engaged by a sub- contractor named Venugopal Nair and the said contractor used to pay his wages in presence of Junior Engineer of C.P.W.D. He further, stated during cross examination that all along he worked under the above sub - contractor till he was refused admission in to the NIC premises on 23-9-1998 . The subject matter of M.A. 190/98 (Ext . D) and Misc . case No. 136/98 (Ext . E) which the workman and many others had respectively filed before the Central Administration Tribunal and Civil Judge (JD ) , Bhubaneswar show that after forming an Association these cases were filed claiming regularization in the establishment of both the Managements . The stand taken in these cases shows that the workman and others by claiming themselves as contract labourers had filed these cases in an effort to get themselves regularized . The reading of the above judgement further indicates that INTUC had also espoused the above claims of the workman in an in vain bid to regularize them . The evidence on record especially the judgement in MΜ.Α. 190/98 ( Ext . D) shows that when no contractor came forward to take up the work of NIC after expiry of the earlier contract on 30-11-1997 the C.P.W.D. intimated such fact to N.I.C. with a request notto issue gate passes to the workers until appointment of a new contractor. This generated an apprehension amongst the workers that they ae likely to be retrenched and therfore they filed the above noted M.A. 190/98 . Thereafter when a new contractor M/ s . Blue Star was engaged from 1-5-1998 the said contractor instead of engaging the workers of the out- going contractor tried to engage his own . As a result the workman and others who were working under the previous contractor filed Misc . Case No. 136/98 before the Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) . Bhubaneswar to prevent the said new contractor from engaging his own workers . Ext E further discloses that after the engagement of the above new contractor the workman and his other colleagues forcibly tried to work as before and there by created problem for the said contractor. As a result, the matter was reported to the police vide Ext . E. The evidence on record further shows that because of the above disturbance the new contractor could not taken up the work until October 1998 .

S.O. 2825. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 285/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Informatics Centre and C.P.W.D. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-42012/ 17 / 1999- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT : Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra , Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE No. 285/2001 Date of Passing Award-23rd May 2006 10. Thus from the above admitted facts it is clear that neither the N.I.C. nor the C.P.W.D. was the employer ofthe workman. The workman was rather an employee of the earlier contractor who was succeeded by M/s . Blue Star. As neither of these contractors are in picture the non-engagement of the workman by M/ s . Blue Star can not be termed as an act of refusal of employment either by NIC or C.P.W.D. The entire gamut of the case speak that the workman was never an employee under N.I.C. or the C.P.W.D. and there was no employee employer relationship between them and as such for the act of the contractor M/ s . Blue Star in refusing to engage the workman can not be coloured as an act of Management No. 1 and 2 and as such there is no merit in the reference .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

BETWEEN

1. The Management of the Director, National Informatics Centre , Sachivalaya Marg. Unit- IV, Bhubaneswar -751001

2. The Executive Engineer, (Electrical), C.P.W.D. , Central Electrical Division,

Bhubaneswar-751012

.... Ist Party-Managements

AND

Their Workman , Shri Bhagaban Biswal , At. EB/792 , Baragarh Brit Colony,

P.O. B.J.B Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 ....2nd Party-Workman APPEARANCES :

M/s . U.N. Samal,

: For Management No.1 .

Advocate

: ForManagement No.2 M/s. Subhasish Das , Advocate

M/ s . N.K. Mishra,

Advocate

..... For 2nd Party-Workman

AWARD

The Governmemt of India in the Ministy of Labour, in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Indistrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No.1 42012/17/99-( IR) (DU), dated 26-07-1999: -

"Whether the action of the Director , NIC and Executive Engineer (Electrical ) , CPWD , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Bhagaban Biswal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The facts admitted by all parties are as follows:-

The National Informatics Centre (Management No. 1) is an establishment of the Central Government . The office of C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) used to call for tenders periodically and appoint different Contractors item-wise to operate and maintain the A. C. Plant and other allied equipments of the Management No. 1.

3. It is alleged by the workman that in April 1991 he was engaged as an A. C. Operator by the then Contractor named Venu Gopal Rao . After the tenure of the said contractor he continued as such under the succeeding contractors engaged from time to time by the C. P. W. D: (Management No. , 2) . As the job of NIC (Management No. 1 ) was perennial in nature himself and similar other workers engagedby different other contractors to work within the premises of NIC formed. aUnion and demanded for their regularization some times in 1997. The INTUC also espoused their cause for permanent absorption. It is alleged by the workman that because of the above both the Managements took a joint strategy and did not issue gate passes to them with effect from 1-4-1998 with the pretext that the contractor engaged had not come forward to renew the contract for the next term commencing from 1-4-1998 . It is further

6465

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

alleged that after engagement of a new contractor M/s . Blue Star with effect from 1-5-1998 they though worked as usual under him they were not paid their wages from May 1998 to Sept. 1998 and ultimately refused employment with effect from 23-9-1998 without any prior notice or notice pay.

4. The management of NIC (Management No. 1) has averred that for the operation and maintenance of its A.C. Plant and it's alleged equipments the C.P.W.D. was engaged and therefore the NIC is least concerned with the workman and other engaged by the C.P.W.D. or any other contractor for the above purpose . In other words it is averred that for maintenance of the A.C. plant the C.P.W.D. was being paid maintenance cost annually not bothering about the mode to be adopted by the C.P.W.D.and therefore the N.I.C. is nothing to do with the termination of the workman or any other workmen engaged either by the C.P.W.D. or by the contractors .

5. It is further averred that after the computerization of the A.C. Plant and other allied electrical equipments there was no necessity of entrusting the maintenance work to the C.P.W.D. and therefore the earlier practice of entrusting the work to the C.P.W.D. was given a complete go bye in later years and therefore the N.I.C. is not liable for the so called termination of the workman.

6. The C.P.W.D. ( Management No. 2) who was admittedly entrusted with the operational and maintenance work of the A.C. Plant of the N.I.C has taken a stand that for execution of the above entrusted work it used to engage from time to time different contractor selected on tender basis . These contractors were simply asked to execute the work as per the specification and tems and conditions as contained in their agreement and therefore , there was least scope for the C.P.W.D. to know about the workers engaged by these contractors . According to it one M/ s . Utkal Refrigeration had taken the job contract from 4/88 onwards up till 3/98 (except for the short period from 4/89 to 9/89) and then M/s . Blue Star Limited took the contract from 5/98 onwards . But the said contractor was not allowed by the workman and others to engaged his own workers until the intervention of police in Sept. 1998 . In other words it is claimed by the C.P.W.D. with necessary implication that when the new contractor M/ s. Blue Star did not engage the workman & other the present dispute was raised as if they were refused employment by both C.P.W.D. & N.I.C. and thus the case is not maintainable against them .

7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether the action of Director , NIC and Exeutive Engineer ( Electrical ) , CPWD , Bhubaneswar in terminating the services of Shri Bhagaban Biswal is legal and justified?

3. If not, what relief the workman is entitled?

6466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 8. To establish their respective cases each party has examined one witness besides producing some documents .

matter was reported to the police vide Ext.-E. The evidence on record further shows that because of the above disturbance the new contractor could not taken up the work until October 1998 .

ISSUE NO . 2 & 3

9. These issues are taken up jointly as they are inter-dependant.

10. Thus from the above admitted facts it is clear that neither the N.I.C. nor the C.P.W.D. was the employer of the workman . The workman was rather an employee of the earlier contractor who was succeeded by M/ s . Blue Star . As neither of these contractors are in picture the non- engagement of the workman by M/s . Blue Star can not be termed as an act of refusal of employment either by N.I.C. or C.P.W.D. The entire gamut of the case speak that the workman was never an employee under N.I.C. or the C.P.W.D. and there was no employee employer relationship between them and as such for the act of the contractor M/ s . Blue Star in refusing to engage the workman can not be coloured as an act of Management No. 1 and 2 and as such there is no merit in the reference .

ISSUE No. 1

11. The law is well settled that the terms of reference must be more specific about the alleged date oftermination and any mistake or omission made in this regard would render the reference bad . In the instant case a similar mistake is noticed in as much as the reference is silent about the date of alleged termination . On this count the reference is also held as not maintainable .

12. For the various discussion made in the fore- going paras there is no other go except to hold that there is no merit in the case as also in the reference .

13. Before parting with the award 1 would like to make it clear that there is seroius lack of coherence between that real claim of the workman raised before the Conciliation Officer and the terms of reference . While the said claim of the workman was for his regularization the reference has been made circumbently on some other count leaving sufficient scope for a comment.

14. Accordingly the reference is answered in negation .

Dictated and Corrected by me . N. K. R MOHAPATRA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2826.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 211/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/68/2000- आई आरं ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी In his evidence the workman claims that since 1991 till the alleged date of termination in 1998 he was working as an A.C. Operator being appointed by C.P.W.D. (Management No. 2) to operate and maintain daily the A.C. plant and its other allied electrical equipments of the establishment of the N.I.C. ( Management No. 1 ) . According to his evidence his above engagement was never through any contractor but then the C.P.W.D. used to show him being engaged by some sham contractors from time to time . But such of the evidence of the workman is found contrary to his stand taken in his claim statement. In the claim statement it has categorically been mentioned that during the above period he used to work under different contractors engaged by the C.P.W.D. from time to time . During cross - examination he has also admitted that in 1991 he was engaged by a sub- contractor named Venugopal Nair and the said contractor used to pay his wages in presence of Junior Engineer of C.P.W.D. He further, stated during cross- examination that all along he worked under the above sub -contractor till he was refused admission in to the NIC premises on 23-9-1998 . The subject matter of M.A. 190/98 (Ext. -D) and Misc . case No. 136/98 (Ext . - E) which the workman and many others had respectively filed before the Central Administration Tribunal and Civil Judge ( JD) Bhubaneswar show that after forming an Associatior these case were filed claiming regularization in the establishment of both the Managements . The stand taken in these cases shows that the workman and others by claiming themselves as contract labourers had filed these cases in an effort to get themselves regularized. The reading of the above judgement further indicates that INTUC had also espoused the above claims of the workman in an in vain bid to regularize them . The evidence on record especially the judgement in M.A. 190/98 ( Ext . - D) shows that when no contractor came forward to take up the work of NIC after expiry of the earlier contract on 30-11-1997 the C.P.W.D. intimated such fact to N.I.C. with a request not to issue gate passes to the workers until appointment of a new contractor. This generated an apprehension amongst the workers that they ae likely to be retrenched and therefore they filed the above noted M.A. 190/98 . Thereafter when a new contractor M/s . Blue Star was engaged from 1-5- 1998 the said contractor instead of engaging the workers of the out-going contractor tried to engage his own . As a result the workman and others who were working under the previous contractor filed Misc . Case No. 136/98 before the Civil Judge ( Jr. Division) . Bhubaneswar to prevent the said new contractor from engaging his own workers . Ext- E further discloses that after the engagement of the above new contractor the workman and his other colleagues forcibly tried to work as before and thereby created problem for the said contractor. As a result , the 6467 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 219/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/31/2001-आई आर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006 S.O. 2826. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 211 / 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/68/2000 IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SH. RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH.

S.O. 2827.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 219/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2006.

CASE NO . LD. 211/2000

[No. L-40012/31 /2001 -IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Mrs. Veena Kaila C/ o Sh . N.K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb .) 151001

....Applicant

Versus

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

1. The General Manager,

CASE NO . L.D 219/2001

Deptt. of Telecom. Hoshiyarpur - 152001 .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Sh . Mohinder Singh S/ o Sh . Mohan Singh C/ o Sh. N.K. Jeet, 27349, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Pb. ) 151001 ....Applicant For the workman

: Sh . R.S. Rana

Versus

For the management : Ms. Deepali Puri .

AWARD

1. The General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar, (Punjab) 143001

Passed on 30-5-2006 .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . R.S. Rana

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/68/2000/ IR(D.U) dated 31-5-2000 has referred the following dispute to tis Tribunal for adjudication.

: Sh . G.C. Babbar

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006.

"Whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Pb . ) in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Mrs. veena kalia a workman engaged through Contractor Sh . Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 1-3-99 is legal and justified? if not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/31 /2001/ IR(D.U) dated 27-04-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Sh . Mohinder Singh S/o Sh . Mohan Singh is just and legal? if not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? " 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R. S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed. File be consiged to record. Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R. S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

का.आ. 2827.- 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

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 6468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2828.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 217/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/22/2001- आईआर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2828. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 217/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L-40012/22/2001 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 217/2001

Smt . Asha Rani D/o Sh . Thuru Ram , C/ o Sh . N. K. Jeet , 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda ( Pb . ) 151001

....Applicant

Versus

.Respondent 1. The General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar (Punjab) 143001

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh . R. S. Rana

Sh . G.C. Babbar For the management

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] of the parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2829.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 215/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/27/2001- आईआर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2829. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 215/ 2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , No. I, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-40012/27/2001 -IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 215/2001

Sh . Raj Kumar

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt . vide Notification No. L-40012/22/2001/ IR (D.U. ) dated 27-4-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

S/o Sh . Swaran Singh , C/o Sh . N. K. Jeet , 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda ( Pb . ) 151001

....Applicant

Versus

.Respondent 1. The General Manager , Telecom , Amritsar (Punjab) 143001

APPEARANCES :

Sh . R. S. Rana For the workman

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager , Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Smt . Asha Rani D/o Sh . Thuru Ram is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request

Sh . G.C. Babbar For the management

11 小梅 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6469

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

AWARD

Passed on 30-5-2006

Central Govt. vide Notification No. L-40012/27/2001/ IR (D.U. ) dated 27-04-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar in termination of services of Raj Kumar S/o Sh . Swaran Singh is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat at the request ofthe parties . The authorised representative of workman Shri R.S. Rana withdraw the present reference vide his statement recorded on 30-5-2006 . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt, be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

30-5-2006

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2830.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डी बी एस बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/225/2005 - आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2830. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.7/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , No. I , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of DBS Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L- 12012/225/2005 -IR (B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT-07 OF 2006 Parties : Employers in relation to the management of DBS Bank Ltd.

2057 Gl/2006-24

And

Their workman

Appearances:

Mr. Alva , Adv. For the management

For the workman

Absent State

Maharashtra Mumbai dated the 14th days of June, 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- 12012/225 /2005 IR(B - 1 ) dt . 16-3-2006. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of DBS Bank Ltd. Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Sadiq Deshmukh w.e.f. 9-2-2005 is justified ? If not, what relief Shri Sadiq Deshmukh is entitled to ?" 2. The workman did not appear to contest the matter after the receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal ; instead the DBS Bank Ltd. has put in appearance through its counsel and filed before this Tribunal a copy of the Settlement arrived at in between the Bank and the workman under Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules for record and information whereby it is being reported that the dispute has been settled in between the parties and the workman has received a lumpsum amount of Rs . 3,00,000 (RupeesThree lakhs only) in lieu of his claim as full and final settlement and the workman has no claims of whatsoever nature against the Bank .

3. In view of the aforesaid settlement , the reference is hereby disposed of.

Justice GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2831.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कैथोलिक सीरीन बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/83/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2831. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the 6470

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L- 12012/83 /2003 - IR (B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT

ERANKULAM

Present : Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Friday the 16th day of June, 2006/26th Jyaistha 1928 )

I.D. 9 of2006

(I.D. 44/2003 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Workman/Union : The General Secretary Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Association A.I.B.E.A. House , P.B. No. 506 Kaliath Royal Square , Palace Road, Thrissur.

By Advocate Shri Ranjith

Thampan

Management : The Chairman Catholic Syrian Bank Limited HeadOffice, Thrissur-680020 .

By Advocate-M/ s B.S. Krishnan Associates .

AWARD

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 for adjudication . The dispute referred is :---

"Whether the action of the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited in imposing the punishment of lowering of two stages in the scale of pay of Shri Jimmy C. Akkarapatty, Cashier of theMarathakkara Branch is proper and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. On notice both sides entered appearance and filed statement of claim and written statement .

3. According to the worker, on an aliegation that he had misbehaved and disobeyed the Assistant General Manager and acted prejudiclal to the interest of the bank, the bank had initiated a domestic enquiry and a punishment of lowering of two stages in the scale of paywas imposed. The charge-sheet contained vague allegations . Different charge were clubbed together. A prior incident was unnecessarily included in the charge.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] The relevant provisions of Bipartite Settlement regarding misconduct are not mentioned in the charge-sheet. The nature of miscenduct is not properly described in the charge-sheet. He had neither misbehaved nor disobeyed the AGM. When AGM instructed the bank staff to take active participation in deposit mobilization he had requested AGM that certain doubts regarding the functioning of the bank had to be cleared first in order to answer the queries of customers . This was not liked by AGM and he reported to the Chairman of the bank that the worker had misbehaved to him . That is how disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the worker . The vigilance manager of the bank had conducted a preliminary enquiry and had taken statements of bank staff with a view to compel them to repeat the same version before the enquiry officer. The evidence adduced on the side of the delinquent was not properly analyzed and assessed by the anquiry officer. The enquiry officer was prejudiced . He was an officer Junior to the complainant and was obliged to the letter. The complainant is short -tempered. He had exhibited his temper during his visit of another branch . The disciplinary authority without properly considering the explanation of the worker imposed the punishment. Though an appeal was filed it was rejected . The worker was transferred to a distant place pending enquiry in order to harass him. Therefore he prays to set aside the enquiry report and punishment .

4. The management filed written statement contending that the reference is not maintalnable . The worker was employed as a clerk in Marathakkara branch of Catholic Syrian Bank. On 31-7-2001 when AGM of Thrissur Zonal Office had visited Marathakkara Branch for assessing developmental activities of the branch . During discussion with the staff about savings bank deposit campaign the worker had shouted and said to AGM that he was not Interested in the campaign as the functioning of the bank was not proper , that higher officers were more interested in visiting the houses of Directors and paying their respects to them than proper functioning of the bank and that certain doubt about the functioning of the bank had to be cleared first before speaking about deposit mobilization . On another occasion the workman had ignored the presence of AGM pretending that he had not identified the person . This behaviour was considsred improper and hence charge- sheeted for indecent behavlour, wilful insubordination , doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and failure to show proper consideration and courtesy to superior officer. Since the explanation of the worker was not satisfactory a domestic enquiry was ordered . The workman was given opportunity to defend the charge . He was assisted by a defence representative . The management witnesses were cross - examined. Defence evidence was adduced. At the end of the enquiry the [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

6471 भारत का संजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आभाड़ 31 , 1928

7. What exactly is the violation of principles of natural justice is not specifically pleaded in the claim statement . When the workman was in the box and examined as WWI he admitted in the cross -examination (pages 8 and 9) that he was represented by Canara Bank Employees Union Secretary as defence representative Throughout the enquiry himself and the defence representative had participated in the enquiry proceedings . The management witnesses were cross- examined. On the side of the defence , himself and another witness were examined . He was given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence . This being his admission I fail to understand what was the violation of principles of natural justice and what was the illegality inthe proceedings of enquiry. The enquiry officer MWI has affirmed the above fact that the workman was given ample opportunity to adduce evidence and cross- examine the management witnesses . At the close of the evidence argument note was also submitted by defence representative. During the enqulry proceedings the workman had not raised any complaint. In fact when MWI was cross - examined there was no effective challenge of the above aspect .

workman was found guilty of the charges except the incident of 20-6-2000 . The disciplinary authority after going through the enquiry proceedings , evidence on record and explanation of the workman concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer. The misconduct alleged affected discipline and morale of fellow employees of the bank. Considering the gravity of the misconduct the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of lowering of 2 stages in the scale of pay. Before imposing punishment the workman was heard. The appeal filed by the workman was dismissed. The charges alleged in the charge-sheet are not vague. The allegations are specific and clear. The enquiry officer conducted the domestic enquiry proceedings in full compliance with principles of natural justice . The allegation that the enquiry officer is junior to the de facto complainant is not true. The allegation that the enquiry officer has not properly considered the evidence on the side of the workman is not correct. Every opportunity was given to the workman . The transfer of workinan from Marathakkara branch to Chavakkad was purely an administrative action and a routine transfer. Wilful insubordination , indecent behaviour and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank are major misconduct as per Bipartite Settlement. Failure to show proper consideration and courtesy to a senior officer is a minor misconduct . A prsliminary enquiry was conducted by a senior officer of the bank to find out whether there was a prima facie case against the workman. It is based on that report that a charge-sheet was issued to the workman. No witness was compelled to give evidence . Therefore the action of the management in imposing punishment is proper.

5. In the light of the above pleadings , the following points arise for consideration :-

(1) Whether enquiry proceedings were fair and proper?

(ii) Are the charges vague and bad for compounding?

(iii) Is the enquiry report sustainable?

(iv) Is the punishment proportionate to the misconduct?

(v) Reliefs and costs .

8. The next allegation is that the enquiry officer MWI was junior to the defacto complainant and hence the enquiry officer had to be loyal to him . This is denied bythe management in the written statement . At the time ofdomestic enquiry MWI was AGM, Zonal Office, Ernakulam. The de facto complainant, was AGM, Zonal Office, Thrissur. Thus both officers belonged to the same rank.Assuming that enquiry officer was junior to the de facto complainant it does not necessarily foilow that the former had to show obligation to the letter. At any rate , the defacto complainant was not a superior officer of the enquiry officer. Any bank officer can be appointed by the disciplinary authority as enquiry officer. MWI was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Head Office and not by the Zonal Officer. Therefore the enquiry officer was completely free to conduct the enquiry in an independent manner. The workman was not able to show any specific instance of favouritism or acts of obligation to the management during the enquiry proceedings . The workman has not brought out during cross- examination ofMW1 that the enquiry officer was junlor to the de facto complainant . Thus the allegation of bias or prejudice or favouritism is not proved by the workman .

The evidence consists of oral testimony of MWi and Ext . M1 on the side of the management and WWI on the side of the workman .

6. POINT NO. 1 :

9. Hence I find that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner complying with principles of natural justice and without creating any occasion for any complaint.

10. POINT NO. 2 :

According to the workman, the charges levelled against him were vague. They were compounded and consideredtogether by the enquiry officer. The relevant clauses ofBipartite Agreement relating to the misconduct There is a contention in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the claim statement that principles of natural justice were not followed in the enquiry proceedings. It is alleged that the enquiry officer was biased and inclined to favour the de facto complainant since the letter was a superior officer.

6472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/AS,ADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)) were not mentioned in the charge- sheet. It was not specified whether disciplinary proceedings were for minor or major misconduct . As a result, the workman was not able to adequately meet the allegations levelled against him . These defects have vitiated the enquiry. Ext . M1 is the enquiry file. Ext. ME1 document in Ext. Ml (enquiry file) is the copy of charge- sheet issued to the workman . The allegation is that on 31-7-2001 when AGM of Thrissur Zonal Office , Shri Jacob J. Arakal visited Marathakkara branch to assess the developmental activities of the branch and during exhoration of the staff for Savings Bank Deposit campaign the workman intercepted and shouted at AGM saying that he was not interested in the campaign and that AGM and the other officers of his cadre were frequenting the corridors of Directors of the Bank, that he cannot participate in the campaign for deposit mobilization, that the functioning of the bank was not proper and that certain doubts regarding furictioning of the hank had to be cleared first- before speaking about deposit mobilization . This behaviour is alleged to be unbecoming of an employee of the bank . It was also alleged that the above acts amount to misconduct of indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank , failure to show proper consideration and courtesy to superior officer , willful insubordination and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The charges afore- mentioned appears to be clear. The misconduct alleged is described in the charge- sheet . The conduct of the workman at the time of the incident is described and the words uttered by the workman against AGM are also narrated. It is true that the four heads of charges are not paragraphed and dealt with separately. But Ext . ME 4 (I ) and ( II ) reply to the charge- sheet shows that the workman has recognized the four heads of charges levelled against the workman in the charge-sheet. It is stated " From above it is clear that I have not behaved indecently on the premises of the bank, that I have not failed to show proper consideration and courtesy to my superior officer , that there was no willful insubordination and that I have done noting prejudicial to the interest of the bank" . He does not say in Ext . ME 4 ( 1 ) and ( II ) that he was not able to understand the allegations levelled against him or the grounds of charges mentioned in the charge- sheet .

v. A. B. C. Mazdoor Sangh 2004 LAB IC 4074 was a case in which the workman of tea estate demanded bonus of 20% as against the offer of 8.33% by the company. The workman gheraoed the Manager and threatened him . When police came to the spot, the mob became violent and damaged the bungalow and other properties of the estate . The manager was wrongfully confined and compelled to sign a document agreeing to pay 20% bonus . Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against concerned workmen and after the enquiry on the basis ofthe enquiry report the workmen were dismissed from service. This was questioned in Court . The Labour Court found that the manager was wrongfully confined and there was extortion of the document and hence the finding of the enquiry officer was upheld and the punishment of dismissal was also found proper. This was challenged in the writ petition and the High Court held that the Labour Court went wrong in concluding that there was extortion of document by the workmen as the charge - sheet had not mentioned about extortion of document . An appeal against the judgement of Single Bench to the Division Bench , was dismissed . Thus the matter was taken up in appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court. In para 21 of the judgement it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: " From the above it is seen everı in a criminal trial if there are omissions to state a particular offence in the charge , that by itself does not occasion a failure of justice unless the accused satisfies the court that the same has occasioned a failure of justice. In the instant case as noted above , in the statements filed by the management before the Labour Court, this act of extortion is specifically alleged and in the reply statement of the workmen , the same is specifically denied and parties have led evidence in regard to their respective cases on the question of extortion, therefore, it cannot be said that the workmen were misled by the omission to mention the charge of extortion. Having joined issue on this question of fact, they cannot also plead that they have been in any manner prejudiced by the said omission or misled by such omission nor can they contend that the said omission has occasioned a failure ofjustice . " Thus , what is important is clarity about the misconduct or offence committed by the delinquent . That is there in the charge- sheet Ext . ME 1 of Ext . M1 .

12. Regarding compounding of charges it is contended by the workman that two incidents of 31-7-2001 and 20-6-2000 are clubbed together and considered by the enquiry officer. It is found in page 11 of the report that considering the delay in levelling a charge regarding the incident of 20-6-2000 and in the absence of satisfactory explanation by AGM , the enquiry officer was not entering any finding regarding the incident of 20-6-2000 . Thus the incident of 31-7-2001 alone was considered and discussed on merits by the 11. There is no prescribed form for charge- sheet. The only criteria is that the charges should be clear so as to enable the delinquent to understand and make out clearly the charges levelled against him so that he may meet the charges adequately. To fortify this aspect the learned counsel for the management drew my attention to a passage from B. R. Ghaiye's "Law and Procedure of Departmental Enquiries in Private and Public Sectors" , page 335 , Vol . I, 3rd Edition. The passage says that there is no form prescribed for a charge- sheet and it may be even in the form of a letter. Management K. Tea Estate 6473 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

enquiry officer. The other charges pertain to a series of acts forming part of the same transaction and hence they are considered together by the Enquiry Officer. There is no infirmity in the procedure .

the discussion, the workman lost his temper and spoke in an indecent manner to AGM. The AGM sent Ext. ME2 report to the Chairman on 1-8-2001 narrating the incident and also referring to a prior incident when the same workman had given a cold shoulder to him on his visit to the branch on 20-6-2000. A preliminary enquiry was conducted through the Vigilance Manager of the bank. He took statements of bank staff as well as questioned the workman. Later the same witnesses including the defacto complainant were examined in the domestic enquiry. Though the enquiry officer in his report has extracted the words uttered by the workman against AGM, once again I reproduce the relevant portions of the statements of the witnesses examined before the enquiryofficer.

17. MW1 (in Ext . M1 ) is the Manager of Vigilance Department . He had conducted a preliminary enquiry. He has stated that the witnesses whose statements were recorded by him at the time of preliminary enquiry had narrated the incident and the words uttered by the workman against AGM on 31-7-2001.

MW2 is the de facto complainant . He has stated that while he was speaking to the staff about deposit mobilization the workman shouted and said : Mana la Magnand "

MW3 is Manager, Marathakkara branch . According to him the workman had uttered the following words when AGM was talking to the staff about deposit mobilization:

old andt Mndomi maht Angjand amnid wewale Avanedenmas l mom moes down . "

13. It is alleged by the workman that the relevant clauses of Bipartite Settlement regarding misconduct are not mentioned in the charge- sheet. It is held in D. T. Undertaking v. Industrial Tribunal AIR 1965 SC 1503 that omission to mention standing order , Regulations or sections is not a flaw in the charge . In B. R. Ghaiye's 'Law and Procedure of Departmental enquiries in Private and Public Sectors ' referred supra, at page 340 it is explained by the author " The sole purpose of framing a charge is that the workman should be made to understand the charge against him . If the charge is clearly described in the charge -sheet then the plea that clause of the standing order was not referred under which the purported charge - sheet was issued is immaterial . " The learned counsel for the workman relied on Rasiklal Vaghjibhai Patel v . Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. and another 1985 I LLJ 527 to canvass for the converse position. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgement as follows : " It is thus well- settled that unless either in the certified standing order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the workman even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct ." The position is different in the instant case. Bipartite Settlement provides for different acts of misconduct . The Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966, Clauses 19.5 and 19.7 refer to ' gross misconduct ' and ' minor misconduct ' . Clauses 19.8 and 19.12 refer to punishment . Thus the Bipartite Settlement is very clear as to what kind of acts would constitute what kind of misconduct . Hence there was no difficulty for the workman to understand the offences alleged in the charge-sheet with reference of the clause in Bipartite Settlement .

14. For all these reasons, I find that the charges framed are clear and proper and there is no infirmity in the charge.

15. Point No. 3 :

MW4 is Clerk - cum- Cashier of Marathakkara branch. He stated :

AGH ഡയറക്ടർമാരുടെ തിൽ നിരതി നടന്നാൽ മതി എന്ന രിതിയിൽ സംസാരിച്ചു ..

It is alleged by the workman that the versions of management witnesses examined before the enquiry officer are inconsistent, that they are tutored witnesses and that the defence evidence is not properly discussed and considered by the enquiry officer.

16. The incident as already mentioned took place on 31-7-2001 at Marathakkara branch when AGM of Thrissur Zonal Office had visited the branch to assess the functioning of the branch and seek cooperation of the staff for deposit mohilization . It is alleged that during 6474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] MW5 is Clerk -cum- Cashier of the same branch . He

stated:

Companyannuam in gamani , wale donde gang 2nd not only. iland warned enmne allemon, msam neig manda hannnm iBid wip .

be handled at a higher level in a different platform . The stability of the bank cannot be discussed and decided between an AGM of a zonal office and staff of a branch . The conduct of the workman , whether he had uttered the words spoken by the witnesses as such or not, was not appropriate and lacked respect to a superior officer of the rank of AGM . I am not persuaded to accept the contention of the workman that he had not uttered the words spoken by management witnesses . The enquiry officer has rightly found that the behaviour of the workman was not proper and he had spoken to AGM impolitely and indecently.

MW6 is peon of same branch . He stated :

alame may eman goal "

Thus, the incident is narrated by all the management witnesses almost in the same manner. Though the remarks uttered by the workman are reproduced by the witnesses in their own words , the substance is the same .

19. The defence evidence was considered and discussed by the enquiry officer . The documents produced by the defence before enquiry officer are identity badges, transfer orders , leave applications and judgement of Industrial Tribunal Palakkad. DWI is Clerk of Kunnathangady branch . He was Vice -President of Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Association at that time . He refers to an incident of 9-10-2001 when the same AGM had visited his branch . According to him he had interfered during discussion and requested AGM to explain about NPA recovery and hear the grievances of staff. This was not liked by AGM and he was angry. He asked DW1 to obey his direction and said that matter relating to NPA recovery will be decided by higher officers . DWI again requested AGM to hear patiently the grievances of the staff. The AGM muttered something in reply and left the venue. This incident has nothing to do with the incident of 31-7-2001 . Probably DW1 is trying to stress the aspect that the AGM by nature is short -tempered. A superior officer may be so by nature . But that does not justify insubordination or disrespectful conduct by a subordinate . The statement of DW1 can in no way support the workman and show that the incident either had not happened or had happened in a different manner . DW1 was not there at Marathakkara branch at the time of the incident on 31-7-2001 .

20. The words spoken by the workman to AGM speak for itself about the misconduct alleged in the charge-sheet, namely, indecent behaviour, failure to show courtesy and proper consideration to a superior officer, willful insubordination and doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Clause 19.5 of 1966 Bipartite Settlement refer to ' gross misconduct ' . Sub-clause ( c) refers to indecent behaviour on the premises of the bank; (e) willful insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a superior; (j ) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Clause 19.7 is regarding ' minor misconduct' . Sub -clause (j ) refers to failure to show proper consideration , courtesy or attention towards officers . Thus , charges 1 , 3 & 4 are ' gross misconduct' and charge 2 is a minor misconduct as per the Bipartite Settlement . It is on the basis of the evidence on record that the enquiry officer has found that the workman is guilty of all the charges leveled against him . There is no reason for this court to strike a different note .

18. The allegation of the workman is that except the vigilance manager andde facto complainant , other witnesses are tutored witnesses . It is true that the statements recorded by the vigilance manager at the time of the preliminary enquiry were produced before the enquiry officer and relied on by the management . But the workman had opportunity to cross - examine all the management witnesses . He was not able to bring out during cross - examination that their versions are inconsistent or there was any compulsion from any quarters to speak in favour of management . It is to be noted that the workman was an office - bearer of employees ' union at that time . Hence the bank staff would not try to victimize him by spinning a yarn against him. It is relevant to note that the workman (DW 2) admits in courts that while AGM was exhorting staff for deposit mobilization he had intervened and said that the public had certain doubts regarding stability of the bank, particularly non- declaration of dividends and non- attaining of capital adequacy. Then AGM asked him not to put questions , but to obey him . Then the workman told AGM that there was no point in taking part in the discussion when he was not permitted to ask questions . Though the workman does not admit having spoken indecently to AGM, the tenor of his statement is indicative of the resentment the workman was nursing against AGM . The talk between AGM and workman took place in the presence of manager and staff of the branch. The remarks were offensive and in bad taste , naturally, lowering the esteem of AGM before his subordinates. The workman was trying to raise a major issue about the bank during discussion in a branch with respect to a smaller issue of deposit mobilization. Major issues are to 6475 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

APPENDIX:

Witness for the Union :

WW1-Shri Jimmy C. Akkarapatty. Witness for the management : MW 1-Shri Joseph Bernad Mathew. Exhibits for the Union : Nil.

Exhibited for the Management: M1-Domestic enquiry file.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

21. The workman has a case that he is being victimized and harassed by the management ever since the alleged incident . Pending the domestic inquiry he was transferred to Chavakkad branch on the ground that he would influence the witnesses of the management . But, even after the enquiry he was not re -transferred to Marathakkara branch or any other branch near to his home town (Thrissur) . The distance from Chavakkad branch to his home is 35 KMs . , but can commute . The management says that it was a routine transfer and not an act of harassment . Whatever be the reason for transfer, it can have no bearing on the issue under adjudication. The subsequent action of the management has nothing to do with the incident regarding which there was an enquiry. For the reasons stated above, I find that the enquiry report is sustainable.

22. Point No. 4:

का.आ. 2832 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कैथोलिक सीरीन बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एर्गाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 38/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/ 73/1994- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2832.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No. 38/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-6-2006,

[No. L- 12012/73/ 1994-IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

The punishment imposed is lowering of two stages in the scale of pay of the workman. Clause 19.6 of Bipartite Settlement refers to the punishment for ' gross misconduct ' . The punishment could be dismissal, censure, fine , stoppage of increment and discharge . Clause 19.8 provides for punishment for ' minor misconduct ' , such as censure , adverse remarks entered in the service book and stoppage of increment for a period not longer than six months . Of the four charges , three are ' gross misconduct ' and one ' minor misconduct . The workman had spoken to AGM in an indecent language with a view to snumb him and belittle. him before the staff and he had bluntly refused to obey the direction of AGM. It is an act of indiscipline and a grave misconduct . When these acts were committed in the presence of the staff the offence becomes more grave. The superior officer will find it difficult to discipline the other staff. Therefore , deterrent punishment is warranted . Lowering of two stages in the pay scale can not at ali be said to be a severe punishment for gross misconduet' (See Clause 19.6 of the Blpartite Settlement) . The workman was an office-bearer of the union and he was more responsible than any other staff to show respect to AGM. The management has taken only a lenient view in the matter of punishment . I have no hesitation to say that the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the workman . In the circumstances , no interference in the punishment is called for.

Shri P.L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 31st day of May, 2005/ 10th Jyaistha 1928)

I.D. 38 of 2006

Workman/Union

The General Secretary, Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Association , 47, Unity Building , Mannadiar Lane, Thrissur-680001 .

23. In the result, an award is passed holding that the finding of the enquiry officer is correct and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the guilt and the claim of the workman to set aside the finding and punishment is rejected. No cost.

Management

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 16th day of June, 2006.

The Chairman, Catholin Syrian Bank Limited HeadOtti St.Marry's College Road, Thrissur-680020.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

By Advocate--M/s . B.S. Krishnan Associates .

6476

AWARD

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 for adjudication. The reference was originally made to the State Labour Court . Later it was transferred to this court as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala .

The dispute referred is :-

"Whether the action of the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Limited in not paying special allowance to sub- staff on transfer is justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?" 2. Union is absent Management present . Nobody has filed Vakalath for union after a lapse of two years . No claim statement is also filed. Today there is no representation also . Hence there is no existing dispute and the claim is dismissed and an award is passed accordingly. The award will take effect one month after its publication in in the official Gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st day of May, 2006 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX : NIL

नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2833.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार लक्ष्मी विलास बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 357/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/109/2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2833. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No.357/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 109/2004- IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 3rd April, 2006 Present : K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 357/2004

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and their workmen . )

BETWEEN

Sri A. Selvakumar

: I Party/Petitioner

AND

: II Party/Petitioner The Chief Manager,

The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. , Karur

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Girija Advocate .

Mr. A.K. Mylsamy, Advocate .

For the Management :

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide order No. L- 12012/ 109/2004 - IR( B - I ) dated 13-5-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is- "Whether the action of the management of The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri A. Selvakumar w.e.f. 26-2-94 without conducting any enquiry is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No.357/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

The petitioner was working as a clerk under the Respondent/Management from 1980 onwards in various branches and finally in Kandhili branch at Thiruppathur Taluk . He was suffering from continuous illness and has sent leave applications for four spells from 1-12-93 to 23-2-94 along with medical certificates . On 28-1-2004 the Respondent/Management sent a communication stating thathis absence from 27-10-93 is an unauthorised one and there by calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days from the date of notice based on Section 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89. After receiving the said notice on 1-2-94 , the Petitioner reported for duty on 24-2-94 in Kandhili branch and handed over the joining letter but the Branch Manager bluntly refused to permit the Petitioner to join duty . Immediately, the Petitioner sent a telegram to Divisional Manager , Salem and Chairman at Karur stating that Branch Manager is not permitting him to join duty on 24-2-04 . On the next day, he sent a telegram notice to the Manager, Kandhili branch stating that action of the Respondent in refusing to provide job is unlawful and unethical . He also sent registered representation to Assistant General Manager through Branch Manager on 24-2-94 . Again on 25-2-94, he again sent a registered letter to Divisional Manager and also met the Industrial Relations Manager of Personnel department of Respondent/Bank and told him that he was not permitted by Branch Manager to join duty and the Industrial Relations Manager advised the 6477 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

by him . Para 17 of the Bipartite Settlement does not speak of receipt of notice i . e . only the date of notice . It is false to allege that the Petitioner reported for duty on 24-2-94 and he was prevented from joining duty. The Respondent/Bank neither received any communication at its Kandali branch nor at its administrative office . Cessation ofemployment of Petitioner brought about in the said circumstances would not amount to a termination by the Respondent/Bank . Therefore, deletion of Petitioner's name from the rolls cannot be said as arbitrary and agaisnt the principles of natural justice. Previously , the Petitioner has abstained from duty unauthorisedly from 29-4-93 and when his unauthorised absence crossed 90 days a notice dated 28-4-93 was issued in terms of para 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 and immediately he reported for duty on 20-10-93 with a view to avoid deletion of his name in terms of settlement dated 10-4-89. Subsequent to that he had again indulged in unauthorised absence from 27-10-93 and from 30-10-93 . Since the Petitioner having failed to get favourable orders under Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishment Act has come before this Tribunal with the same baseless allegations . But, the mere fact that the Petitioner from January, 1991 to 28-1-94 has reported for duty only for 49 days shows how much interest he has got towards employment . The countenance of the claim of Petitioner would amount to gross abuse of process of law. Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

Petitioner to act according to the instructions of Assistant General Manager. On 26-2-94 the Petitioner sent registered letter to AGM narrating all the above facts and requested him to provide a special letter to the Branch Manager. But, the AGM has abruptly sent a communication on 28-2-94 stating that since the petitioner has not reported for duty till 26-2-94 his name was deleted from 26-2-94 without considering the various efforts taken by the Petitioner, which is illegal and deletion of his name from roll is without considering his representation is arbitrary and against principles of natural justice . Even though the Respondent/ Management alleged that all the leave applied for by the Petitioner are unauthorised one , they have neither rejected nor returned the leave applications . Further , deleting the name of Petitioner from rolls on 26-2-94 without issuing any notice , farming charges and even without conducting any enquiry is unlawful . It is a clear case of victimization done against principles of natural justice and also provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act. The Petitioner then filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Shops & Establishment Act in TSE No. 8/94 challenging order of termination and the appeal was allowed on 13-3-97. Against that order, Respondent/Management preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court and High Court by and order dated 12-12-2003 without going into the merits of the case, allowed the same on the ground that authority has no jurisdiction to decide the Matter. Hence , the Petitioner raised this dispute before Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central) . Therefore , the petitioner prays to pass an award to set aside the order of termination and to reinstate the Petitioner into service with full back wages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

5. Again, in the rejoinder, the Petitioner alleged that notice dated 28-1-94 of the Respondent/Bank was received by him on 1-2-94 and therefore, he has got time 3-3-94 . Though the Respondent alleged that the time prescribed in the notice expired on 26-2-94, he has approached the Respondent/Bank on 24-2-94 and submitted his joining report. Only because he was not permitted to join duty, he sent a telegram on the same day i.e. 24-2-94 regarding actual happenings to the Assistant General Manager, Divisional Manager and Chairman of the Respondent/Bank . Even the AGM received the representation given by the Petitioner on 26-2-94 and without considering the above representation, the AGM issued a communication dated 28-2-94 to the effect that the Petitioner's name has been removed from the rolls w.e.f. 26-2-94. Even after that he has sent a detailed reply to Divisional Manager and it was received by him on 1-3-94 . When there was a difference of opinion regarding issue of joining duty, the Respondent/Bank ought to have conducted an enquiry to clarify the issue and the Petitioner should have given an opportunity to explain the genuineness of his case . Therefore, without conducting any enquiry the order passed by the Respondent/Management is illegal and against the principles of natural justice . Even the High Court in number of decisions held that ' date of notice' has to be read as " date of receipt of notice" otherwise itwill be liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution . Since the striking of his name from rolls of bank is a clear case of termination which amounts to retrenchment, the same is illegal and invalid 4. In the Counter Statement, the Respondent has contended that though the Petitioner was working as a clerk he was not really interested in the job . He was not available for employment continuously for long periods. In the year 1991 he reported for work only for 12 days , in 1992 for 25 days and in the year 1993 for 12 days . The Petitioner has exhausted all the leave entitled for an employee and even after exhausting his leave he continued to submit his leave application from time to time . The said leave applications were rejected by the Respondent/Bank with an endorsement ' unauthorised absence with consequent cut in salary' . Leave applications for the period from 30-10-93 to 5-11-93, 6-11-93 to 30-11-93, 1-12-93 to 21-12-93, 22-12-93 to 10-1- 94 and 11-1-94 to 5-2-94 was never sanctioned by Respondent/Bank . Therefore , his continuous absent for 90 days attracted provisions of Section 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 . Since the Petitioner absented for duty unauthorisedly as per the terms of para 17 of settlement , notice dated 28-1-94 was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause why para 17 of Bipartite Settlement should not be invoked and he was further called upon to report for duty within 30 days thereof and to give satisfactory explanation and in the absence of reply, his name will be deleted on the expiry of 30 days notice which expired on 26-2-94 . The Petitioner was not reported for. duty on 24-2-94 as alleged

2057 G1/2006-25 6478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] in the absence of complying with mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the 1.D. Act. Hence, he prays for an award in his favour.

10. To substantiate his claim , the Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and on the side of the Petitioner 12 documents were marked as Ex . W1 to W12 . As against this , on the side of the Respondent one Sri N. Subramanian who is working as Chief Manager, HRD of Respondent/Bank was examined as MW1 and on their side 48 documents were marked as Ex. M1 to M48 .

11. At this stage, the point to be decided in this case is 'whether the allegation made by the Petitioner that he had ready to join duty on 24-2-1994 is true and whether the action taken by the Respondent/ Management is legal ?

6. Again, the Respondent/Management filed an additional counter alleging that Petitioner had been charge sheeted on three prior occasions for his frequent unauthorised absence and appropriate punishment was also imposed on three occasions . In all these cases , the Petitioner reported for duty purposely and willfully before expiry of notice period and worked for few days and again remained absent from duty. He had been referred to medical board/DMO on several occasions for his continued absence on various days to find out his fitness to resume duty but the Petitioner did not appear before the medical board and prolonging the matter. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and hence , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner with costs.

7. In these circumstances , the points for my determination are-

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent / Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner Sri A. Selvakumar w.e.f. 26-2-94 without conducting any enquiry is justified ?

(ii) To what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

Point No. 1 :-

8. The case of the Petitioner is that while he was working as a clerk in Kandhili branch at Thirupathur Taluk of the Respondent/Bank , due to his ulcer problem, he submitted leave application for the period fromfro 27-10-93 to 30-11-93 . Since his illness continued, he sent leave application for further period of four spells from 1-12-93 to 23-2-94 along with medical certificates. But all these leave were not sanctioned and by a communi- cation dated 28-1-94 , the Respondent/Bank stated that his absence from 23-10-93 was unauthorised one and called upon him to report for duty within thirty days from the date of notice as per para 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 . This communication was received by him on 1-2-94 and as per notice he has got time till 3-3-94 . Further , he reported for duty on 24-2-94 itself before the Branch Manager of Kandhili branch of Respondent /Bank . But , the Branch Manager has not permitted him to join duty and immediately he has informed the same to the Divisional Manager, Salem and Chairman of the Respondent/ Bank at Karur. Even though he has taken immediate action against the illegal act of the Branch Manager , the Respondent/ Management on 28-2-94 sent a notice that the Petitioner has not reported for duty till 26-2-94 and hence his name was deletedfrom 26-2-2004 without considering all the efforts taken by the Petitioner . Hence, he raised this dispute.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Ex . W4 namely the notice alleged to have been sent on 28-1-94 was sent through recorded delivery, but the Respondent/ Management has not produced any document to show that Ex . W4 was despatched to the Petitioner . MW1 who was examined on the side of the Respondent has stated that he did not know the correct date of despatch of Ex . W4 . On the other hand, the Petitioner has received Ex . W4 notice on 1-2-94 and therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner has got time till 3-3-94 to report for duty as per Ex . W4 notice i.e. thirty days from 1-2-94 , but even before this date , the Petitioner reported for duty on 24-2-94 but the Branch Manager of Kandhili branch has not permitted him to join duty. This fact was recorded by the Petitioner by way of telegram to various officers of the Respondent/ Management . But , the Respondent/Management having successfully prevented the Petitioner from joining duty, hastily removed the name of the Petitioner from the rolls as early as 26-2-94 itself, which is against the principles of natural justice . Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the rulings reported in 1994 WRIT L.R. 408 BAKTHAVATSALAM VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, wherein the High Court of Madras while dealing with the same provision in the case of Indian Overseas Bank with regard to date of notice , it has held that " date of notice has to be read as date of receipt of notice otherwise , the said clause will be struck down as violative of Article 14 of Constitution . " Therefore , learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on this judgement argued that it is established from this decision that term of thirty days from the date of notice must be construed from the date of receipt. But, in this case even prior to this date , the Petitioner had approached the Respondent/Bank branch at Kandhili , but the Branch Manager has refused to permit him to join duty . Therefore , the order passed by the Respondent/ Management invoking the provisions of Section 17. of Bipartite Settlement is not valid. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Respondent witness namely MW1 has clearly admitted that he was not working in the II Party/Bank during the year 1994 , therefore , he did not know personally anything in this matter and he speaks only through records . Therefore, MWI is not a competent person to say anything about the receipt of Ex . W5 series telegrams . In this case, nager

9. But, as against this , the Respondent denied the allegation that the Petitioner was not permitted to join duty on 24-2-94 and they reiterated their stand that the action taken by them is legal.

6479 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

13. As against this , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that even prior to this incident the Petitioner has been charge sheeted on prior occasions for his frequent unauthorised absence and after holding enquiry appropriate punishment was imposed on the three occasions . On 26-12-1983 , the petitioner was punished with stoppage of one increment postponing his future increments and again, the Petitioner was charge sheeted on 17-8-88 and 30-11-90 and punished further with stoppage of three increments and five increments respectively. Even after these punishments the Respondent/Management invoked the provisions of para 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 and issued notice to the Petitioner on 3-7-92 , 19-2-93 and 28-9-93 for his continued absence . To be treated as voluntary cessation of service . The Petitioner immediately reported for duty purposely and willfully before expiry of notice period and worked for few days and again remained absent himself from duty. Further, the petitioner had been Referred to Medical Board on serveral occasions for his continued absence on various dates. Thus, he was referred to appear before Medical Board on 26-9-88 , 20-10-89, 27-6-91 , 27-1-93 and 18-8-93 of which he did not appear before the medical board on 27-6-91 , 27-1-93 and 18-8-93 despite having received instructions . Therefore , in these circumstances , the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and he is a chronic absentee for duty and he has no interest in employment and he has created all these documents for the purpose ofthis case and contented that he has reported for duty on24-2-94.

apart from Ex. W5 telegrams , on 25-2-94 the Petitioner caused telegraphic notice through his lawyer to the Branch Manager, Kandhili of II Party/Management tothe effect that he was not permitted to join duty and stated that his action is illegal . Even with regard to this document, the management witness has stated that he has no knowledge about the receipt or non-receipt of Ex . W6 . Even assuming for argument sake without conceding that telegrams were sent by the Petitioner without actually reporting for duty on 24-2-94 nothing prevented the Respondent/Management to immediately reply to the Petitioner on receipt of telegrams that he has not reported to duty. The Petitioner has also sent Ex. W7 letter dated 24-2-94 to the Assisant General Manager with a copy to the Divisional Manager of Respondent/Bank stating that he reported for duty on that date i.e. 24-2-94 and it was also received on 26-2-94 and it was known from the copy of acknowledgement filed by the Petitioner. Even for this Respondent/Management witness deposed in the cross examination that he has no knowledge about Ex. W7 letter. Apart from this , the Petitioner has also sent Ex. W8 letter dated 25-2-94 to the Divisional Manager of Respondent/Bank appraising all the above happenings and it is also clear that he has received this letter on 1- 3-94. The Petitioner has also sent Ex. W9 letter dated 26- 2-94 to the Assisant General Manager and the same was also received by the Assisant General Manager. Even for this, MWI has stated that the original of Ex. W1 is not onthe bank records. But, on the side of the Respondent/ Bank letter dated 25-2-94 was marked as Ex . M14 which was sent by the Petitioner to Assistant General Manager. But during the cross examination , MWI has stated that he has no knowledge of date of receipt ofEx. M14. Further, he has stated that we have not given any reply to the same. In the absence of any document to proved that it was received subsequent to 26-2-94, it can be presumed that the same was received by Assistant General Manager even on 26-2-94 itself. Since the Respondent management having received all the telegrams, registered letters sent by the Petitioner that he was not permitted to join duty and the Respondent/ Management having not chosen to give reply for all these communications , the contention of the Respondent that all these documents are created for thepurpose ofthis case cannot be believed. Therefore, the action of the Respondent/Management in deleting the name of the Petitioner from the rolls of Respondent/ Bank is illegal and against the principles of natural justice . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that even assuming for an argument sake that the Petitioner without actually reporting for duty on 24-2-94 and he has created all these documents, nothing prevented the Respondent/Management to immediately initiate disciplinary enquiry against the Petitioner to know the real facts . But, without doing all these things , the Respondent/Management want only terminated the Petitioner from the services of the Respondent/Bank. Hence , an award is to be passed against the Respondent/Bank to reinstate the Petitioner into service as prayed for.

14. Though I find some vehement in the arguments ofthe learned counsel for the Respondent, it is clear from the documents produced by the Petitioner namely Ex. W5 to W7 namely copy of telegrams dated 24-2-94 to 25-2-94 that he was ready to join duty and only the Branch Manager has refused to permit him from joining duty. Even assuming for argument sake that as per notice dated 28-1-94 , thirty days notice expired on 26-2-94, even prior to this date, the Petitioner has taken steps to join duty and he was prevented by the Respondent/Management. Therefore , I find without giving any reply to the action taken by the Petitioner , the Respondent/Management waited till 28-2-1994 and issued notice under Ex . W10 that they have invoked the provisions under para 17 of Bipartite Settlement and his name has been removed from the rolls of the bank. I find there is no bona fide on the part of the Respondent/ Bank to contend that the Petitioner has not joined duty before 26-2-94 . No doubt , provisions of para 17 of Bipartite Settlement state that when an employee reports for duty within thirty days of notice and gives explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the Respondent/Management that he has not taken up another employment or a vacation and that he has no intention of not joining duty, the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice . In the event of the employee submitting satisfactory reply, he shall be permittedto report for duty thereafter within thirty days 6480

from the date of expiry of the above said notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service of the bank. Even assuming that the Petitioner is a chronic absentee wthout any leave, in such circumstances , the Respondent/Bank has got right to take action under law or rules of service for his unauthorised absence . In this case , since the Petitioner has established before this Tribunal that he has joined duty before the expiry of thirty days and it was only the Respondent/Management prevented him from joining duty, I find the action taken by the Respondent/Bank by invoking provisions of para 17 of Bipartite Settlement is not legal . Therefore, I find this point against the Respondent/Bank and in favour of the Petitioner.

Point No. 2 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

15. In view of my foregoing findings that the action of the Respondent /Bank in terminating the services of the Petitioner with effect from 26-2-94 without conducting any enquiry is not justified . I find the Petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. However, with regard to back wages , since the Petitioner has not adduced any evidence that he is all along without any employment, I find in the circumstances of the case , the Petitioner is entitled only to half of the bank wages. Therefore, I direct the Respondent/Bank to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and with regard to back wages , the Petitioner is entitled to half of the back wages . It is further ordered that there is no prohibition in taking departmental action again by way of conducting domestic enquiry against the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank with regard to his unauthorised absence from 27-10-93 . No costs .

16. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3rd April , 2006. )

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :-

: WW1 Sri A. Selvakumar For the I Party/ Petitioner

: MW1 Sri N. Subramanian For the II Party/ Management

Documents Marked :-

For the I Party/Petitioner :--

Ex. No. Date Description

W1 18-11-80 Xerox copy of the appointment order issued to Petitioner.

W2 22-6-81 Xerox copy of the confirmation order of Petitioner.

W3 27-08-87 Xerox copy of the promotion order ofPetitioner.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

Date

Ex. No.

Description

28-01-94

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner.

Nil

Xerox copy of the telegram series sent to Respondent .

W6 Nil

Xerox copy of the telegram sent by Petitioner's counsel to Respondent.

W7 24-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent with A.D. card.

25-02-94

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent/ Management .

W9 26-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent with AD card.

W10 28-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent/Bank to Petitioner.

Nil

W11

Xerox copy of the S.B. Account opening slip of N.A. Central Co -op . Bank .

W12 13-03-97 Xerox copy of the order in T.S.E. No. 8/94.

For the II Party/Management :-

Ex. No. Date Description

17-08-88 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner.

M2 07-09-89

M3 03-11-89

Xerox copy of the proposed order Xerox copy of the final order.

M4 30-11-90 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner.

M5 21-11-91 Xerox copy of the notice issued by Disciplinary Authority.

M6 27-12-91 Xerox copy of the final order .

M7 10-11-93 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner .

M8 03-07-92 Xerox copy of the notice to Petitioner to report for duty.

M9 19-02-93 Xerox copy of the notice to Petitioner to report for duty.

M10 02-03-93 Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner.

M11 28-09-93 Xerox copy of the notice.

M12 13-10-93 Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner.

28-01-94

M13

Xerox copy of the notice issued to Petitioner.

M14 25-02-94 Xerox copy of the reply submitted by Petitioner.

M15 28-02-91 Xerox copy of the notice from Respondent to Petitioner.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Ex. No. Date Description

M16 03-07-92 Xerox copy of the notice from Respondent to Petitioner 30-01-92

M17

Xerox copy of the certificate of fitness to retun to duty.

M18 12-10-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 27-11-93

M19

Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner.

M20 09-7-83 Xerox copy of the circular issued by Personnel department .

M21 16-05-87 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 24-06-87

M22

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

M23 19-08-87 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

M24 29-08-87 Xerox copy of the assurance letter from Petitioner.

M25 19-06-89 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 09-11-89

M26

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner.

M27 16-12-89 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 27-12-89

M28

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner.

M29 23-04-90 Хегox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 17-02-93

M30

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 28-05-88

M31

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner. 25-08-88

M32

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to DMO.

05-10-89

M33

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to DMO.

M34 30-05-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

M35 04-06-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

M36 20-06-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner.

M37 14-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

28-07-93

M38

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Joint Director of Medical Services .

M39 18/26-08-93 Xerox copy of the notice sent by Joint Director of Medical Services , Vellore to Petitioner .

6481

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई, 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Ex. No. Date Description

08-07-91

M40

Xerox copy of the letter from Divisional Office of Respondent to Personnel Department, Karur.

M41 30-01-92 Xerox copy of the certificate of fitness to return to duty.

M42 19-03-93 Xerox copy of the certificate of fitness to return to duty.

M43 27-12-93 Хегox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Kandhili Branch Regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner.

M44 05-01-94 Хегох сорy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner.

M45 21-01-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Kandhili branch Regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner.

M46 20-01-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Personnel Department ot Kandhili Branch Regarding sanction of leave ofPetitioner.

M47 04-02-94 Xerox cpy of the telegram sent by personnel department to Petitioner.

M48 21-01-94 Хегox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Kandhili branch Regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून, 2006

का.आ. 2834.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/00 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

1la , y & 1201246969 & v bolj ( ch& I ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2834. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.31/00 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Mysore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2006.

[No. L- 12012/469/99- IR(B-1)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 7th June, 2006

Present :

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 31/00

permanent with job and then terminating his services without valid and sufficient reasons much less conducting any enquiry tent amounts to illegal termination and it is the case of clear victimization . Therefore, he initiated conciliation proceedings ending in failure report and resulting in to the present reference . He prayed for award with a direction to the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages , continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

I PARTY

II PARTY

Sh . M.T. Krishnappa,

S/o Thimmaiah , C/ o Hanumaiah ,

The Managing Director , State Bank of Mysore, K.G. Road, Banglore

No. 4/101 , ' B ' Street, Jagajeevanaramnagar , Bangalore-560 018

AWARD

1. Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 12012 /469/ 99 dated 24th May, 2000 for adjudication on the following schedule :

"Whether the action of the management of the State Bank of Mysore is justified in terminating the services of Shri M.T. Krishnappa w.e.f. April 1998 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

3. The management by its Counter Statement resisted the claim of the first party interalia, contending that he was just working as a casual worker on temporary basis from time to time being provided work at his request by managers of different branches but he never worked at any branch and in any calendar year continuously for 240 days or more and therefore , cannot be allowed to the reliefs sought for or to maintain the dispute under I.D. Act ; that the first party intermittently worked as a casual worker for 219 days during the years 1983-84 & 1984-85 and never worked subsequent to the year 1985 at the said Mandya Branch. Heworked in different branches during the period from 1995 to 1998 intermittently on casual basis but never worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more in a block period of 12 months . He was given certificates for having worked in different branches just to enable him to get work atleast on casual basis , that too , on the requests made by him . At para 4 of the Counter Statement the management gave the details of total working days the first party was engaged in various branches of the management bank disclosing that he worked at Maddur Branch in the year 1983-84 & 1984- 85 for a total period of 219 days , at Mandya Branch in the year 1995-96 for a period of 127 days , at Richmond Road branch for 89 days from august 1996 to December 1996, 91 days at Sampangiramnagar Branch from March to June 1997 and lastly inthe year 1998 for a period of 90 days , once again at Richmond Road Branch , Bangalore. therefore , the management contended that in none of those branches the first party workman continuously worked for a period of 240 days and more much less in a particular calendar year nor he was found suitable for the selection of sub - staff post when he was interviewed twice having fulfilled the condition of 90 working days as on 31-10-1984 as per the circular issued by the management bank . In the result the management requested this tribunal to reject the reference there being no case of termination or violationof any of the provisions of law.

4. During the course of trial , the management examined one witness as MW1 and got marked the extract of record for having paid wages to the first part atdifferent branches at Ex. Ml series . His statement in examination chief relevant for the purpose is as under :-

2. The case of the first party workman as made out in the Claim Statement, to put in nut- shell, is that he worked with the management Maddur Branch, Mandya District continuously from 01-03-1983 till October 1985 and for no good reasons his services were terminated. After some time he was again called back and discharged hisduty at the said Branch continuously till 1995 thereby putting in 14 years of continuous service without proper payment or his services being confirmed. Once again he was terminated from service in November 1995 and was taken back in service on 7-12-1995 and was working at Mandya main Branch till July 1996. He was transferred to Bangalore from Mandya Branch in August 1996 and from August 1996 to November 1996 he worked at Richmond Road Branch, Bangalore adn then he was shifted to Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Branch where he worked up till April 1998 and then he was refused work once again for no good reasons ; that he was twice interviewed for the permanent post in the year 1986 and 1991 but has not been selected though fulfilled required qualifications and worked for a period of 219 days as on 31-10-1984 , despite the bulletin dated 6-1-1988 issued by the management which provides for service of 90 days on or before 31-10-1984. He protested against hiş non- selectionfor permanent post but of no avail . Therefore , since he worked with the different branches of the management bank right from the year 1983 uptill 1988 , the action of the management in not making him

"I know the facts of the case. I am giving evidence on the basis of the records . I know the workman by way of records . I party was employed as [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Casual Labourer inthe year 1983. In 1983 he worked for 65 days . Again in 1984, he worked for 17%, days at Maddur. In 1985 he worked for 74%, days. He also worked at Mandya. He worked at Mandya for 10 days . First party was engaged as Casual labourer whenever permanent employer was not available . He was appointed as Casual labourer whenever there was work. Again in 1996 he worked at Mandya for 117 days between January and July 1996. He also worked in Bangalore at Richmond Road for 90 days, between August 1996 to December 1996. In 1997 he worked for 91 days . It was from March to June . He worked for 90 days from September 1997 to November 1997. Again he worked for 90 days i.e. January 1998 to april 1998. Ex. M1 series are the extracts of the record for having pad wages for the workman at different branches . He has never worked continuduly for 240 days in any year. First partywas not tranot transferred by the bank. He was not a permanent complotree . Reference may be rejected. " 5. The first party on his party examined himself as WW1 by filing his affidavit evidence , almost, repeating the various averments made by him in the Claim Statement and in his further examination chief got marked 9 documents at Ex . W1 to W9 . His further examination chief with reference to documents and his statement in cross examination is as follows :

"Today, I have produced service certificates at Sl . No. 1 , 6 to 11 and 2, they are marked as Ex. WI series. Bulletin at Sl . 3 is at Ex W2 . Appointment letter is at Ex . W3 is at Sl . No. 4. Interview letter at Sl . No. 5 is at Ex. W4 . Circular at Ex. W5 . Legal notices at Sl . No. 13 and 14 is at Ex . W6 series . Reply to that is at Ex. W7 TC extract (Xerox copy is at Ex. W8 . From No. 1 (Xerox copy) is at Ex . W9 . " "Cross Examinatlon :-1. was engaged by the management as a Casual Labourer, Maddur Branch . It is not true to say that I was being engaged whenever permanent employee was going on leave. It is true that I have worked for a period of 65 days inthe year 1983 , so also for 17 and half days in 1984 and 74 and half day in 1985 at Maddur branch. I have worked as Temporary peon for 3 days and & days as Watchman in December 1995. Like wise in January 1996 I have worked as casual labourer and watchman for a total period of 10 days . From February 1996 to July 1996, I have worked for 100 days in that Capacity at Madhya Branch . At Richmond Road, Bangalore I have worked as a Temporary peon for a period of 89days from August 1996 to December 1996. It is true that there after at Sampangiramnagar Branch I have worked for 91 days from March 1997 to June 1997. Likewise at Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Branch , I have worked for 90 days from September 1997 to November 1997. I again worked at Richmond Road

6483

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

branch from January 1998 to April 1998 for a period of 90 days . I have received the payment as per Ex . M1 . I had attended interview held by the bank once in 1986 and 1991. It is not true to suggest that I did not share well both the interviews and therefore , was not selected for the temporary peon. It is not true to suggest that in no calendar year at any branch, I have worked for a period of 240 days continuously and that I am not entitled to any relief."

6. I would like to come to the oral testimony of MWI & WWI and the documents as and when found relevant and necessary.

7. Learned counsel for the management in his argument while taking support of the very statement of the first party in his cross examinationand the documents produced by him as well as the statement of MW1 and the above said extract of record for payment of wages to the first party marked at Ex . Mi series , submitted that admittedly the first party has not worked at any branch of the management bank for a period of one year continuously nor he worked for the above said period continuously in any calendar year, and that his services being engaged on casual basis temporarily, there was no question of termination of the services and in the result he cannot seek any relief on the ground of alleged illegal termination and therefore , he should not be considered for reinstatement etc. He cited the following seven decisions in support of his aforesaid argument.

1. JT 2002(2) SC 238

2. 2994 (Vol . 107) FJR 264 SC

3. 2004 LAB IC 4041 SC

4. 1996 ( 10) SCC 597

5. AIR 1997 SC 3657

6. 1992(4) SCC 9

7. 1999(iii) LLJ (Supp . ) 320 SC

8. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party argued that the first party has been in the services ofthe management bank in about 5 branches working right form the year 1983 up till 1998 but has been terminated from services now and then and that the management also did not maintain proper records so as to deny the first party service benefits and the right available to him to be continued in service as a permanent worker in violation of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the ID Act and Section 2( 00) thereof. His contention was that though the management engaged the services of the first party for aperiod of more than 240 days in a particular calendar year but failed to maintain proper records and the records producedby the management at Ex. Mi do not depict the correct details of the working days for which the first partywas engaged. He also submitted that though the first party was interviewed twice for the purpose of selection to permanent post but was ist selected despite his fulfilling the required conditions including the condition of service of 90 days as on 31-10-1984.

6484

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

nothing prevented him to protest about the same with the respective branch managers so as to give the proper and correct details of his working days in those certificates . It is also as noted above , not his case that he had raised such objections with the respective managers nor such case was made out by the first party either in his Claim Statement or in his statement before this tribunal except to say that proper record was not maintained by the management and those records have not been produced before this tribunal to defeat his rights . His contention that though he was interviewed on two occasions i.e. once in 1986 and again in 1991 and has not been selected despite his fulfilling the required qualifications is again without any basis and substance.

10. As could be read from the records , since the firstparty had put in total working days of more than 90 days as on 31-10-1984 he had been afforded an opportunity of participating in the interview proceedings to be considered for the permanent post of sub - staff. The management's contention is that since he did not fulfil the required conditions , he was not selected for the said post. Moreover, under the present facts and circumstances of the case we are not concerned here as to whether the management was not justified in not considering the case of first party for permanent post in pursuance to the interviews held by it . We are now concerned as to whether the first party to get the relief of reinstatement, back wages etc. has fulfilled the requirements of continuous service of 240 days and more in a particular calendar year under the management . As noted above , in none of the calendar year and in none of the management branch he worked for a period of 240 days and more continuously and therefore , it cannot be said that there was any violation of the provisions of I.D. Act much less Section 2 ( oo ) and 25B read with section 25F of the I.D. Act . In the result it cannot be said that the management was not justified in terminating the services of the first party. However, keeping in view of the fact that the first party has been asssociated with the management bank for the last 14 years working on casual basis , termporarily, whenever he was provided with the work by the aforesaid branches , it appears to me that it will be in the interest of justice to call upon the management to provide work to the first party on casual basiswhenever the work is available with the branches . Hence the following award :

AWARD

The reference stands dismissed . The management isdirectedto consider the case of the first party on humanitarian ground by providing him the work of temporary peon on casual basis as and when the branches under it are in need of such a work in the same way as was being done in the past. No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 7th June , 2006)

9. After having gone through the records , I do not find much substance in the argument advanced for the first party . As could be read from the very service certificates produced by the first party (four in numbers ) marked as Ex.W1 series and so also from his statement incross-examination, he undisputedly worked for a period of65 days in the year 1983 , 79 ½ days in the year 1984 and 74 ½ days in the year 1985 i.e. in total , for a period of 219 days . He worked as a temporary peon for 3 days and 7 days as a Watchman in December 1995 , worked for 10 days as a Watchman in January 1996 and then as a casual worker from February 1996 to July 1996 for a period of 100 days . At the first spell at Richmond Road branch i.e. from August 1996 to December 1996 he worked for a period of 89 days and at Sampangiramnagar branch he worked for 91 days from March 1997 to June 1997. Likewise , he worked at the above said Ambedkar Veedhi Branch for a period of 90 days from September 1997 to November 1997 and in the second spell at Richmond Road Branch he worked for a period of 90 days from January 1998 to April 1998. Therefore, as per the very admissions of the first party in his cross examination and the very documents namely the service certificate produced by him obtained from the respective Branch Managers , his period of total working days comes to 219 days during the years 1983 to 1985. Не worked for 10 days in the year 1995 and in the year 1996 he worked for a period of 206 days i.e. he worked for 89 days at Richmond Road Branch and worked at Mandya Branch for a period of 117 days and whereas , from January 1988 to April 1988 he worked for a period of 89 days during the year 1997 at the above said Ambedkar Veedhi branch and then worked for 90 days once again at Richmod Road Branch from January 1998 to April. 1998. This oral testimony of WW1 and the aforesaid documents produced by him further got support from the above said statement of MW1 in his examination chief and the extract of records showing the payment of wages to the first party marked before this tribunal at Ex.M1 Series . Therefore , the oral and documentary ev idence produced by the first party himself as well as by the management would make it crystal clear that at no branch of the management bank and in no particular calendar much less block of 12 calendar months , the first party worked with the management bank branches continuously for a period of 240 days and more . His contention that though he worked for a period of 240 days and more in a particular calendar year under different branches , the management did not maintain proper records so as to deny him service benefits and the rights available under the provisions of ID Act has to be rejected on its face itself as the first party has been very much alert and prompt in getting the above said service certificates obtained from the respective branch managers from time to itme and it is not his case that he had protested with the respective branch managers for not showing the correct working days in the certificates issued by them. Had he worked for a period more than the period shown in the respective certificates , then

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6485

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006 /

का.आ. 2835.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/312/2002 - आई आर( बी-I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2835. In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial DisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Govern- ment hereby publishes the award (30/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial/Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Indústrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 27-6-2006.

[No. L- 12012/312/2002- IR (B.I)

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

of India isjustified in terminating the services of Shri Karthikaya Swamy, Daily Wager, with effect from November 2000 ? Ifnot, what reliefhe is entitled to? " 2.The case ofthe first party workman, as made in the Claim Statement, to be precise and concise is that having studied and passed 9th Standard and coming from poor family of Chittapur district, he joined the services of the management bank w.e.f. 2-9-1988 , initially working at Mudbi branch as a messenger up till 10-3-1989 and there- after, he rendered the services at different branches of the management as per the details given by him at Para 5 ofthe Claim Statement running as under :--

Thatthe service rendered by him indifferent branches ofthe Second Party management are produced in the form of the statement below :

From

Branch

Name

Total Days

2-9-1988 10-3-1989 49 Mudhbi , Basavakalyan Taluk, Bidar

29-8-1992 April 1993 204 StationBazaar, Gulbarga

23-4-1993 4

20-4-1993

LeadBank,

Gulbarga

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL RTIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

April 1993 June 1993

Jevergi Colony, Gulbarga

162

Dec. 1993

July1993

MainBranch

Gulbarga

Dated 9th June, 2006

PRESENT

Feb. 1994

158

Dec. 1994

Gulbarga

Main Branch

Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI

Presiding Officer

Dec. 1995 117

Jan. 1995

Gulbarga

Main Branch

C.R. No. 30/2003

II PARTY

I PARTY

Jan. 1996 Dec. 1996 150 Gulbarga MainBranch

The Chief General Shri Kartikaya Swamy,

174

Jan. 1997 Dec. 1997

Gulbarga

MainBranch

C/ o Shri Jagadeesh Sangavi , Manager ,

StationRoad,

StateBank ofIndia,

St.Marks Road, Jaffargons,

Bangalore-560001 Chittapur,

6-5-1997 28-5-1997 23 Gulbarga

Jan. 1997

139

Dec. 1997

Gulbarga

MainBranch

Karnataka State.

Gulbarga

Karnataka State

AWARD

SIT Tumkur

26-3-1999 27-4-1999 29

Jan. 2000 195

June 1999

Bangalore

Rajajinagar

5thBlock

Aug. 2000 103

May2000

Bangalore

Rajajinagar

5thBlock

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section 2A ofthe Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dis- putevide Order No. L- 12012/312/2002- [ IR(B -I ) ] dated 31st Manch, 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Whether the action ofthe management of StateBank 2067 G1/2006-26

18-11-2000 83

Aug. 2000

Electronics City,Bangalore 6486

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

the various Service Certificates at Ex . W2 to W16 issuedby different branches of the management disclosing the num- ber of working days , he was engaged in those branches . Both MW1 & WW1 have filed their affidavits just reiterat- ing the respective cases made out by them in their plead- ings and therefore , averments in the affidavits may not be repeated. I would like to come to the statements ofMW1 & WW1 in their cross examination and the documentary evi- dence produced as and when it is found relevant and nec- essary.

3.He contended that as seen above , the manage- ment utilized his services of 83 days in the above said Electronic City branch from August 2002 to 18th Novem- ber 2002 and thereafter thrown him out of the job without any reason and did not reinstate him in service despite his several requests . Therefore, the first party contended that since he worked with the management in different branches continuously from 02-01-1988 till he was denied work in the month of November 2000 , the action of the manage- ment amounts to illegal retrenchment and in violation of the provisions of Section 2(oo) read with Section 25F of the ID Act. He also contended that provisions of section 25H, G & N of the ID Act have also been contravened by the management in refusing work to him and therefore , he isentitled for reliefofreinstatement , back wages and other consequential benefits .

6.Learned Counsel for the management, vehemently, argued that as per the very particulars of the working days shown by the first party in his claim statement at Para 5 and the aforesaid documents namely certificates issued by the branches in his favour from Ex.W2 to W16 and documents at Ex.M3 to M6 , it gets abundantly clear that the first party in no calendar year and with no particular branch worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more and therefore, he cannot seek relief of reinstatement and other reliefs on the grounds that he fulfilled the re- quirements of Section 25B of the ID Act and that there was violation of Section 25F of the ID read with Section 2(00) thereof by the management .

4. The management by its Counter Statement among other things contended that as per the law laid down by theApex Court reported in AIR 1976 SC Page 1111 , it is only such of those temporary workers who had completed continuous service of 240 days and more in a preceding calendar months as provided under Section 25B of the ID Act and have been discontinued from service without notice and payment of retrenchment compensation, are entitled for reinstatement. The management contended that as per the very admission of the first party workman he has worked on temporary basis from 02-01-1988 to November 2000 and therefore , he is not entitled to be con- sidered as a candidate for absorption or the relief of rein- statement, there being no violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act in as much as refusal of work to the first party did not amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act , he being a temporary employee working under the management being provided jobofcasual worker subject to availability of the work with thebank. Therefore, in the light of the above , the point to be considered would be whether the first party worked with any of the branch of the management bank continu- ously for a period of 240 days and more in a particular calendar year or during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding his termination from service so as to attract the provisions of Section 25 B and 2 (00 ) read with section 25F of the ID Act .

7. Whereas, learned counsel for the first party with equal vehemence argued that the certificates of service at Ex.W 2, 3 , 4, 5 & 6 issued by the respective branch managers , genuineness of which is not disputed by the management and on the other hand supported by their own documents marked before this tribunal at Ex . M3 to M6 would make it abundantly clear that the first party worked in various branches of the management continuously for a period of240 days and more and thereby be fulfilled the requirement of section 25B of the ID Act particularly in the year 1993 and since he has been removed from service without the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act, the action ofthe management amounts to illegal retrenchment as defined under section 2(oo) of the ID Act and therefore , he is entitled for reinstatement and back wages and other reliefs . He submitted that it is not necessary for the first party to have substantiated that he worked continuously for240 days and more in 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment as it is not the conditionprecedent to require to be fulfilled as per Section 25B of the ID Act . On this point learned counsel relied upon the following four decisions :

1. 1985(4) SCC 201

2.. 1983 ( 1 ) LLJ Page30

3. 1985(4) SCC Page 71

4. 2002(3) LLJ Page 885

8. After having gone through the records and the principle laid down in the aforesaid ruling so also the plain reading of the Section 25B of the ID Act, I find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. In the instant case it is not in dispute rather has been proved in the very 5. During the course of trial , the management filed affidavitevidence ofone Mr. Vadi Raj P. Bhatt said to have been working as Dy . Manger (Personnel & HRD) , Zonal Office , State Bank of India , Bangalore and in his further examination chief got marked 3 documents namely the Bi- partite Settlement entered into between the management and the union representatives , statement showing the par- ticulars of the working days of the first party in different branches and the details of his working days at Ex . Ml to M6, respectively. On his part, the first also filed his affida- vit evidence and got marked one document at Ex.WI ap- pointing him as a temporary Sweeper in the cross examina- tion ofWW1 and in his further examination chiefgot marked 6487 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

partyworked for a total period of 191 days and during the year 2000 he worked for total period of210 days inbetween themonths ofJanuary 2000 and November 2000 , the month in which he was refused work by the management . If we calculate the working days backward from the date of retrenchment i.e. 18th November 2000 backward up till October 1999, certainly the first party has not worked continuously for a period of 240 days or more during the aforesaid 12 calendar months . In this context I must also appreciate the arguments advanced by the first party that the management purposely in order to deny him the benefits and the right available to him under the provisions of ID Act did not engage him for a period of240 days and more during the aforesaid 12 calendar months and had given an artificial break in the service ofthe first party during the months of November, March and April 2000. Even otherwise as noted above , the provisions of Section 25Bdo not mandate that continuous service of one yearmust necessarilybe during the 12 calendar months immediatelypreceding the date on which the workman was refused work. The principle laid down by their lordship of ourHon'bleHigh Court in a decision reported in 1983 1 LLJ page 30 after having taken into consideration the principle laiddown by their Lordship of Supreme Court in Mohanlal V/s.Bharat Electronics Ltd. reported in 1981 11 LLJ page 70(III) have made the position of law on this point very clear ruling that it is not necessary for an employee to have worked for 240 days and more in the year immediately pre- ceding the date of discharge so as to get the benefits of Section 25F ofthe ID Act. Same principle of law have been laid down in the other three decisions cited on behalf of the first party referred to supra . Therefore , since undisputedly, the first party has worked with the various branches of the management for a period of240 days and more during the 12 calendar months of the year 1993 , there cannot be any hesitation for this tribunal to come to the conclusion that he fulfilled the requirements of Section 25B of the ID Act . If we proceed on the assumption that the first party worked for a period of 240 days and more continuously during the aforesaid then it goes without saying that refusal or denial of work to him by the manage- ment without the compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act was in violation of the provisions under Section 2(00) of the ID Act. It was a clear case of the retrenchment and illegal termination and therefore, the action ofthe manage- ment was not justified in terminating the services of the first party and therefore, the first party of the reference to this effect is to be answered in favour of the first party.

documents produced by the management at Ex.M 2 to M6 that the first party has been working with the various branches ofthe management bank right from the year 1988 till the month ofApril 2000. The only relevant question to be considered would be whether the first party worked for a period of 240 days and more in 12 calendar months fulfilling the requirements of Section 25B of the ID Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(oo) read with Section 25F of the ID Act, In this case one need not go into the oral testimony of MW1 & WW1 in the face of the documentary evidence produced by the parties with regard to the working days of the first party in each of five branches of the management bank. From the perusal ofthe documents namely the letters at Ex.M2 to M6 and the service certificates produced by the first party at Ex. W2 to W16 it is not disputed and cannotbe disputed that the partyhas not worked for 240 days and more in the year 1988, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 & 2000. However, the above referred service certificates at Ex .W2 would reveal that the first party worked with Station Bazar Branch, Gulbarga for a period of 80 days during the months of January 1993 to April 1993. Ex . W3 would reveal that he worked for 41 days during the months of May and June 1993 and Jewargi Colony Branch, Gulbarga. Certificate at Ex.W6 reveals that the first party worked at main branch of SuperMarket at Gulbarga for a period of 162 days during themonths of July, August, September, October, Novem- ber&December 1993. As noted above, these are the certifi- cates issued by the respective branch managers and the last certificate at Ex .W6 infact has been issued by the Chief Manager of State Bank of India. Therefore, they are not disputed and cannot be disputed by the management. That apart, as noted above, the management also produced the letters at Ex. M6 to M6 . The letter at Ex. M3 is again issued by the Chief Manager of State Bank of India noting down number of working days as 162 days from the months of Julyto December 1993. The letter at Ex.M5 would read to the effect that the first party worked for 31 days in the month of January 1993, 28 days in the month of February and 16 days in the month of March 1993. The letter at Ex.M6 is to disclose that the first party worked for a period of45 days during the months of April 1993 to June 1993 . Therefore, from these undisputed documents produced by the first party at Ex . W2 to W16 and the very documents produced by the management referred to supra it has been very much established that the first party worked in vari- ous branches of the management bank continuously for a period of280 days and more . As noted above , there is no dispute here that the first party has worked less than 240 days in a particular calendar year for the rest of the years between 1998 to 2000. As far as the working days of the first party during 12 calendar months before he was refused work in the month of April 2000. It can be seen from the documents at Ex. W13 , 14 , 15 & 16 that in the year

1999 for the months of June to December 1999 the first

9. Now coming to the question of relief of reinstate- ment , back wages , continuity of service and other benefits, it is not disputed and cannot be disputed that the firstpartyhas been working with the management branches intermittently as temporary Messenger-cum- sweeper . He has been in the service of the management by his own admission subsequent to the year 1988. The contention of the management that the first partyjoined its services w.e.f.

6488

2-9-1988 has not been disputed on behalf of the first party. Therefore, when the first party admittedly was not in the service of the management in between 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 he cannot stake the claim of permanent absorption in the post of Messenger or Peon for that matter as a sub staff in the light of the various settle- ments taken place between the management and All India State Bank Staff Federation as indicated at Para 21 ofthe Counter Statement filed by the management and not dis- putedby the first party. Therefore , keeping in view the fact that the first party was being povided with the work in the aforesaidbranches subject to availability of the work purely ontemporary basis , it will not be advisable to burden the management with the reinstatement of the first party once again to be engaged from time to time on temporary basis, or to be terminated from services in compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act . For the very same reason he was workingwith the management branches as a casual worker ontemporary basis subject to availability of the work, in my opinion, he does not deserve back wages from the date of his retrenchment till the date of passing of this award. Therefore , taking all these factors into consideration, the only proper order to be passed in favour of the first party and against the management would be to pay him a lump sum amount of Rs . 60,000 by way of compensation towards his full and final settlement of claim against the management . Since the first party has been associated with the management branches for a period of about 12 years it appears to me in the interest ofjustice to call upon the management to take the services ofthe first party in the manner in which he was being engaged earlier to his termi- nation. Hence the following award:

AWARD

The management is directed to pay a sum of Rs . 60,000 to the first party by way of compensation towards his full and final settlement of the claim against it . The Management is asked to consider the case ofthe first party and provide him the very same temporary workwhich was being given to him earlier to his termination from service , of course , subject to the availability of the work in the management bank branches . No costs .

(Dictatedto PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 9th June , 2006)

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2836.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/95 ) की प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/88/94- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2006

S.O. 2836. In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gov- ernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/95) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Central Railway and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L-41012/ 88/94- IR (B-I) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR No. CGIT/LC/R/64/95

Presiding Officer : Shri C. M. Singh Shri Purushottam Ahirwar,

...Workman S/o Shri Shankar Lal Ahirwar, C/ o Shri Shankarlal , ChiefT. N. C, RailwayQuarter No. R.B./2/34-A, Railway Colony, Damoh(M. P. )

Versus

...Management TheDivisional Railway Manager , Central Railway, Jabalpur.

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of June , 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -41012/88/94 - IR (B - I ) dated 20-4-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis Tribunal :-

" क्याप्रबंधतंत्र मध्य रेलवे , जबलपुर ( म. प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा श्री पुरूषोत्तमलाल अहिरवार , भूतपूर्व , श्रमिक की सेवायें दिनाँक 19-11-89 से समाप्त किये जाने एवं उसे नियमित श्रमिक न किये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है, यदि नहीं तो संबंधित श्रमिक किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "

2. Workman Purushottam Lal Ahirwar was employed under the control of Signal Inspector, Central Railway, Damoh as casual mazdoor and he worked under him from 23-4-79 to 18-4-82 and 1-4-87 to 18-11-89 . His 6489 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22 , 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

therefore , the question ofhis termination from service does not arise. It has been specifically pleaded that a few days ofworking does not entitle the workman for a continuity and reengagement in service. It has been further denied by the management that the workman is entitled to any relief under Sec-25 -F of the I.D. Act , 1947 or for any retrenchment compensation . The workman has failed to name any junior who is similarly placed and retained in service . For the reasons stated above , the workman is not entitled to any reliefwhatsoever.

4. The workman examined himself in support ofhis case. The management in order to defend the reference filed affidavits of Shri Motilal Sharma, an employee of the management and Shri S.G. Digvelkar, an employee of the management .

services were terminated w.e.f. 19-11-89 without notice and without being given any opportunity of being heard. His termination from the service amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Sec-25 (B) of the I.D. Act , 1947 and no retrenchment compensation was paid to him , therefore his termination is void-ab- initio . Junior to him in service have been retained by the management. This is clear cut violation ofthe principle "Last come First Go " . The workman filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur which is registered as O. A. 179 of 1992 and the Honourable Court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay. The Honourable Court did not consider the case on merit . Since the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicableto the I. D. Act, 1947 and the case ofthe workman was notdismissed on merit, therefore the workman has still right to approach this Honourable Tribunal under the I.D. Act, 1947. It is prayed by the workman that the tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management of terminating his service is illegal and not justified and the management be directed to reinstate the workman in service withall consequential benefits .

5. It is worthwhile to mention here that the management failed to produce their witness Shri Motilal Sharma for cross - examination and therefore the affidavit filed by him connot be read in evidence . Another witness ofthe management Shri S. G. Digvelkar was cross-examined on behalf of the workman therefore his entire evidence is perfectly legal and may be considered for deciding the case onmerit.

6. The parties have failed certain Photostat copies ofdocuments on record. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Photostat copies of the documents filed by the parties have neither been admitted nor denied by the other party. Those copies have not been proved in accordance with law ofevidence and therefore those copies cannot be read in evidence .

7. I have heard Shri R. C. Srivastava, Advocate the learned counsel for the workman and Shri M.D. Pandey, Advocate the learned counsel for the management . I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

8. In their Written Statement , the management has taken preliminary objection that the Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Jabalpur was not the employer of the workman and therefore the reference is not maintainable for this preliminary objection. But during the course of argument , the learned counsel for the management did not put forward a word regarding this preliminary objection . Not only this , no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the management on this preliminary objection. Therefore , the aforesaid preliminary objection has no legs to stand and consequently the same is rejected.

9. The management has also taken the plea in their written statement that the department in which the workman was allegedly employed is not an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the said Act is not applicable and consequently the reference is liableto be rejected. On this point too, the learned counsel for the management did not make any submission during the 3. The management contested the case and filed their WS . Their case in brief is as follows . It has been pleadedbythe management that the case in not maintainable as it is not against the employer . That the employer in the instant matter is not the Divisional Railway Manager. That themanagement is not industry under I.D. Act, 1947 and the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not applicable , therefore the claim is liable to be rejected. The workman having availed the remedy before the CAT in O.A. 179 of 1992,wherein, he agitated his discontinuation from service and the matter was duly adjudicated by the Honourable CAT, Jabalpur . That the Honourable Court dismissed the same on 23-7-1993 and thus the workman having availed the remedy of the forum of the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot reagitate the same . The workman by virtue ofthe employment card, wherein it was shown that he has workedunder Inspector of Works (Maintenance ) Jabalpur for various period from 23-4-79 to 18-7-82 , obtained the temporary work of installation of Electro Photo Signals from Gatera to Baghora. That the management disputes the authenticity and bonafide of the employment card on the basis of which the workman obtained the temporary work under the Chief Signal Inspector, Damoh. Actually the work of installation ofElectro Photo Signals comprised ofthe installation of 72 signals on 18 Railways Stations . That the work was of purely temporary nature and came to end within 3 months . The workman 'was therefore temporarily engaged as casual labour and on completion ofthe said work of installation , the services of the workman were no required . It has been denied by the management that the workman continuously worked from 23-4-79.to 18-4-82 and 1-4-87 to 18-11-89 . It has been denied by the management that there was any termination and submitted that the workman was not in service of the management, 6490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] course ofargument. No evidence has been led on behalfof the management on this point. It is very well settled that the Indian Railways comes under the definition of "Industry" as defined in Sec-2 (j ) of I.D. Act 1947. It is therefore , held that the reference is maintainable before this tribunal .

10. It has been pleaded by the management that the workman having availed the remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 179 of 1992, wherein he agitated his discontinuation from service and the matter was duly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur. Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the case of the workman vide order dated23-7-93 and the workman having availed the remedy from the above forum cannot reagitate the same . The workman in his rejoinder averred that the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed his case on the point of limitation and not on merits and therefore this tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the reference . The learned counsel for the workman submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur had dismissed the application filed by the workman on the ground of limitation. He further added that the dismissal ofapplication by the aforesaid forum on the point of limitation does not debar the workman in raising the industrial dispute regarding his termination before this tribunal . A certified true copy of order dated 23-7-93 passedby Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur bench, Jabalpur in O.A. 179/1992/3396 Purushottam Lal Ahirwar versus Union of India and another is on record ofthis reference which clearly indicates that the petition of the workman was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur being barred by time . It is a settled principle of law that the provisions of Indian Limitation Act do not apply to the industrial disputes raised under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I arn , therefore , of the considered opinion that the reference is maintainable in thistribunal.

worked for some days , it does not mean that he is entitled to reinstatement. Workman Purushottam Lal Ahirwar, no doubt, stated in the evidence of his examination - in- chief that he worked in Central Railway, Jabalpur since the year 1979 to 1982. That he worked at Damoh w.e.f. 1-4-87 to 18-11-1989 but on being cross -examined, the witnesses stated that he did not produce any record for showing his working days . He further stated that he did not work in the Railway continuously. He clearly stated that he worked with the Railway intermittently in several parts . The workman has not given any documentary evidence for proving that he worked with the Railways continuously for 240 days in any calendar year. The submission of the learned counsel for the workman that he management has not produced the attendance register and in the absence of filing the said register inference is to be drawn that the case of the workman is true that he worked continuously for more than240 days prior to the date of his termination, has no substance . The averment that the workman worked continuously for more than 240 days has been made by the workman .And it becomes the duty of the workman to prove the said averment by documentary as well as oral evidence . I have gone through the record . The workman never requested the tribunal to direct the management to produce attendance register so that his working days may be counted . Thus there was no order or direction to the management to produce attendance register of the workman. The onus of disproving that the workman did not work continuously for 240 days or more in any calendar year does not rest on the shoulders of the management . Under the above circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn against the management and in favour of the workman . Shri S.G. Devalkar, the management's witness deposed in his affidavit that the workman never continuouslyworked and has only worked in broken period from 1-4-87 to 18-5-87, 21-4-89 to 18-7-89 , 19-9-89 to 18-11-89. It has been admitted by the workman in his evidence of cross - examination that he never continuously worked with the management and always worked in broken periods . It is therefore not proved that the workman worked with the management in any year continuously for 240 days. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, the w.e.f. 19-11-89 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.

12. It is concluded from the above that the act of management ofCentral Railway, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 19-11-89 and not regularising him is just and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the opinion that the parties should bear their own cost of this reference. The reference is therefore decided in favour of the management and against the workman as follows with the direction that the parties to the reference shall bear their own costs of thisreference .

11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman has examined himself and submitted that he worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to his date of termination and the management has not produced attendance register and in the absence of filing the said register, inference is to be drawn that the case of the workman is true that he worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to the date of his termination . Against the above, the learned counsel for the management submitted that the work for which the workman was engaged was of purely temporary nature and came to an end within 3 months and the averments made by the workman that he continuously worked from 23-4-97 to18-4-82 and 1-4-87 to 18-11-89 is specifically denied. Ithasbeen further submitted by the learned counsel for the management that merely because the workman has 6491 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

ARPEARANCE:

For the employers : Mr. R. N. Shah, Advocate

For the workman Mr. Vasant J. Amberkar, Advocate.

" प्रबंधतंत्र मध्य रेलवे , जबलपुर ( म. प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा श्री पुरुषोत्मलाल अहिरवार , भू पूर्व , श्रमिक की सेवायें दिनांक 19-11-89 से समाप्त किये जाने एवं उसे नियमित श्रमिक न किये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है। फलतः श्रमिक किसी अनुतोष का हकदार नहींहै ।"

Date of reservingAward : 12thMay,2006 13. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour as per rules.

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer Date ofpassing of Award: 22ndMay,2006 नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

AWARD- PART I

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceeding are as under:

का.आ. 2837.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडीकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 151 /2000-आई आर( बी- II ) ]

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L- 12012/ 151 /2000/IR (B - II ) dated 6th February, 2001 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, have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Mumbai bydismissing Shri Kashinath K. Ovhal from the services ofthe Bank is justified and proper? Ifnot, then what relief the workman is entitled to ?" S.O. 2837. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act , 1947. ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 21/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexture in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L- 12012/ 151/2000- IR (B.II)]

AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II MUMBAI

PRESENT:

A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer REFEERENCE : CGIT -2/21 OF 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SYNDICATE BANK

TheDeputyGeneral Manager,

SyndicateBank,

SB, Zonal Office ,

2. The Second Party Workman raises the dispute regarding his dismissal of 1989, first raising it before Competent Authority who sent it to this Tribunal for adjudication , by its letter dated 6th February, 2001 , contending that, the charges leveled against him were vague and not to the point. Enquiry was not conducted properly . Charges were not proved against him . Opportunity was not given to him to participate in the enquiry. Haste was made by the Enquiry Office . Enquiry Officer was bias and determined to convict the Second PartyWorkman. There was no evidence of any type before the Enquiry Officer of the concerned witnesses like M/s . Shakti Enterprises or Gaikwad. The allegations leveled against 2nd Party Workman were of vague nature since these were not proved and since there was no enquiry as expected 1st Party cannot take such a drastic action of dismissal against Second Party Workman on this type of Inquiry and its finding. So it is prayed that dismissal issued against Second Party be set aside with directions to 1st Party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity of service.

Mayker Towers, ' E' Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Plot No. 85, Mumbai400021

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Kashinath K. Ovhal,

C/o . S.A. Borkar , RBI Officers Quarters , A/23 , Dhanastra, 122, N.P. Marg,

Colaba, Mumbai 400 005

3. This claim ofthe 2nd Party is disputed by the Ist Partyby filing exhaustive reply at Exhibit 10 containing 16 : pages, initiallydening the case of the 2nd Party, then giving explanation and again answering each point para wise of the 2nd Party taken in the Statement of Claim, as well as point wise and made out the case that, charges leveled against 2nd Partywere true and correct . Those wire proved against him. Enquiry was conducted by following principles 6492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

hearing inquiry officer had explained me the nature of inquiry and that 1 was given opportunity to bring DR. It is correct I had told the inquiry officer that I would personally defend the charges . It is correct I did not examine , myself in the inquiry.

of natural justice . Full opportunity was given to the 2nd Party Workman. 2nd Party participated in the enquiry; Cross examinedthe witnesses of the 1st Party. There was sufficient evidence against 2nd Party Workman before InquiryOfficer to answer those charges leveled against him and convict him. It is denied that, there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer who gave finding against the 2nd Party. So it issubmitted that , enquiry conducted be observed as just and proper and finding not perverse . It is submitted that , punishment given to 2nd Party is just and does not require any interference .

16. It is correct I had never requested the inquiry officer to allow me to examine owner of Shakti Enterprises and Mr. Kharadkar . It is correct inquiry was not conducted during the period my eyes were operated. It is correct inquiry officers report is based onthe documents and evidence led before him . It is correct I was given full opportunity."

4. In view of the above pleadings my Ld. Predecessor framed Issues at Exhibit 12. Out ofthose , Issue No. 1 and 2 which are on the point ofenquiry and perversity ofthe findingare taken as preliminary Issues which I answer asfollows:

Issue

Findings

Yes

1. Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman is as per the Principles ofNatural Justice ?

2.Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer areperverse? No

REASONS

Issue Nos . 1 and 2

6. Ifwe peruse this cross -examination of Second Party Workman we find that , it reveals he received charge sheet, in January, 1988 itself. Even he gave reply to it . He admits that, in the reply he did not claim that, charges were vague and baseless . He also admits that, he participated in the inquiry and admits his signatures from pages 1 to 18 of Exhibit 15. He admits that, on the first day of the enquiry proceedings were explained to him by the Enquiry Officer. He also admits that he intimated Enquiry Officer that he will defend himself in person . He admits that , opportunity was given to him to cross examine the witnesses . He also states that , he did not examine himself to defend his case . He admits that , full opportunity was given to him in the enquiry. He also admits that, documents were considered bythe Enquiry Officer before giving finding.

7. So , if we péruse these admissions of the 2nd Party which are before this Tribunal , in this reference , question arises what more required to conclude that, opportunity was given to 2nd Party Workman and he enjoyed it? The admissions given by the 2nd Party which are reproduced as above from his depositions (Exhibit 17) clearly reveals that, he participated in the enquiry. He cross examinedthewitnesses . Documents were placed on record by the 1st Party in enquiry on the basis of which, Enquiry Officer concluded and what not?

5. To prove that enquiry was fair and proper , actually no evidence was led by 1st Party and by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 21 as , 1st Party chose not to lead any evidence and wanted to place reliance on the enquiry proceedings placed on record with Exhibit 15. To prove that the enquiry was not fair and proper 2nd Party placed reliance on his own evidence placed on record in the form ofaffidavit, filed at Exhibit 17. In the said affidavit it is stated that, no opportunity was given. He was unable to lead any evidence due to his cataract operation which he was to undergo during the relevant period. He was compelled to sign the documents . He actually did not participate in the enquiry . No documents were placed on record. There was no evidence of M/s . Shakti Enterprises and C. L. Gaikwad in which connection charges were leveled against him. However , in the cross examination taken by 1st Party'sAdvocate in this reference we find that, this witness answered the question like this :

8. The grievances of the Second Party is that witness like M/s . Shakti Enterprises and Mr. Gaikwad were not examined before the Enquiry Officer . After all examining witnesses is the choice of the concerned party. If at all there was no substance in the charge connected with M/s . Shakti Enterprises and Mr. Gaikwad then 2nd Party Workman was having full opportunity to examine both witnesses on his behalf and disprove the case of the 1st Party. Here it is worth to note that 2nd Party himself did not step into witness box the enquiry and not requested the management or Enquiry Officer to summons M/ s . Shakti Enterprises or Mr. Gaikwad. If we consider that 2nd Party was well educated, well versed with the English and work in the Bank then how now it fits in his mouth to say that, enquirywas not fair and proper?

" 15: It is correct that I received charge sheet dated 18-1-88 . It is correct after reading the charges I had given reply pg . 52/Exhibit- 15 . It is correct I have mentioned in the said reply that the charges are vague, baseless and false. It is correct letter now shown to me pg . 28/4 (Ex - 15) bears my signature of which contents are correct . It is correct I had participated in the domestic inquiry. It is correct inquiry proceedings pg . 1-18 /Ex- 15 now shown to me bear my signatures . It is correct on the first day of 6493 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/ आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

were not perverse . Accordingly I answer these issues to that effect and pass the following order:

ORDER

(a) Enquiry was fair and proper;

(b) Finding not perverse;

Mumbai

22ndMay,2006

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2838.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद 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 7/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।...

[सं: एल-12011/153/2005- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2838. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No. 7/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 27-06-2006 .

[No. L- 12011 / 153/2005 -IR (B- II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present:

Shrikant Shukla: Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 7/2006

Ref. No. L- 12011/ 153/2005 - IR(B- II) Dt. 23-02-2006

Between:

The Secretary,

Allahabad Bank Staff Association ,

C/o Allahabad Bank,

MainBranch,

Hazratganj,

Lucknow- 226002

And

The Asstt. General Manager,

9. The charges leveled against 2nd Party Workman were the charges of misconduct . In fact those charges are based onthe documents filed by the 1st Party in connection with 2nd Party Workman . Those are in the file and on enquiry proceedings also . It is pertinent to note that , nothing is stated by the 2nd Party about those documents and charges leveled against him and regarding those transactions . Charge of misguiding Mr. Chanderkant Gaikwad and representing falsely before First Party to raise loan on the guise of renovation of house with false quotationsfrom M/ s . Shakti Enterprises are concerned are of very serious nature . Those are connected with Bank transactions and activities . Even 2nd Party has not stated anything regarding those charges but simply make hue and cry stating that, since he was undergoing cataract operationandwas unable to see and the enquiry is not fair and proper and hue and cry is made by the 2nd Party Workman regarding conduct ofthe enquiry and conclusion of it on the very day i.e. 23-12-1988 . We find that on 22-12-1988 enquiry was adjourned to 12-1-1989. The record and proceedings reveal that 2nd Party Workman reported before the Enquiry Officer at 2.45 p.m. on 22-12-1988 itself and expressed apology about his absensee in the morning session and shown willingness to proceed with the enquiry. Though, enquiry was adjourned to 12-1-1989, the enquiry was initiatedwith the consent of2nd Party on 22-12-88 and the witness. R.P. Mallayas appears to have been examined bythe 1st Party. Evidence ofMr. Mallayas is recorded in 7 hand written pages and it is signed by the 2nd Party Workman also . Then on the very next day cross was taken by the 2nd Party of said Mr. Mallayas and it is signed by 2nd Party Workman. Then record and proceedings reveal that on 23-12-1998 the enquiry was concluded with the consent of the 2nd Party and then finding was given. So from this it cannot be said that, enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. Besides it cannot be said that there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to conclude that , finding was perverse as claimed by the 2nd Party . On the contrary record and proceeding reveal that enquiry was conducted fairly and properly. It reveals that, Enquiry Officer was having documents and evidence to give finding and said finding is not perverse as claimed by the 2nd Party Workman . In the finding Enquiry Officer concluded that 2nd Party was guilty of the charges leveled against him. Enquiry Officer considered charges leveled against the 2nd Party Workman . Those were connected with the business of the 1st Party which indulge in Banking activities . So definitely all this reveals that, there was an enquiry which was fair and proper. No other substance is shown by the 2nd Party Workman to observe that, enquiry was not fair and proper. Besides , documents placed on record by the 1st Party were considered by the Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer concluded relying on the evidence placed in the enquiry.

Allahabad Bank, Regional Office, New Building, 1st Floor,

Hazratganj,

Lucknow-226001

10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove I observe that, the enquiry was fair and proper and findings

2057 Gl/2006-27 6494

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following dispute No. L- 12011 / 153/2005 - IR (B - II ) dated 23-02-2006 for adjudication to Presiding Officer , CGIT - cum- Labour Court, Lucknow;

"Whether the action of the Management of Allahabad Bank, Lucknow in not giving full wages to Smt . Geeta, Safai Karmchari w.e.f. 7-3- 2001 is legal and justified? if not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

The case has been taken in the Lok Adalat today after the regular working hours , Sri T.B. Singh representative of the Secretary, Allahabad Bank Staff Association , Hazratganj Lucknow and Sri J.K. Ambwani , Sr. Manager (Personal ) of the Allahabad Bank accompanied by his Legal Advisor Sri M.Κ. Verma appeared . They stated that they have resolved the dispute amicably through the negotiations held in the Lok Adalat and accordingly the management has accorded full wages to the worker Smt . Geeta, Safai Karmchari and there ramains no dispute . The statement of Sri J.K. Ambwani and Sri T.B. Singh has been recorded which is paper No. A- 7 . Since the dispute resolved amicably in the Lok Adalat and the full wages have been accorded to Smt . Geeta Safai Karmchari therefore the reference stands disposed off. The statement of the representatives of the parties paper No. A - 7 shall be part of the award. Award passed accordingly.

Lucknow : SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer Dt. 13-06-2006

A-7 13-6-2006 I.D. No. 7/2006

Smt . Geeta Vs. Allahabad Bank Statement of Sri J.K. Ambwani , rep . of Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Lucknow :

Subsequent upon receipt of reference order the disputes amongst the parties are resolved & Smt . Geeta has been accorded full wages . Accordingly the case may be disposed of as compromise by way of negotiations in Lok Adalat .

Sd/-

J.K. AMBWANI , SM ( Pers . ) Statement of Smt . T.B. Singh, Representative of Trade Union .

As stated by the rep. of the bank, I agree that the case is finally settled . The relief given . There is no grievance as to past wages .

Sd/-

T.B. SINGH , AR for Union

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 27 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2839. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 /216/2000- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

S.O. 2839.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No.23/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 27-6-2006 .

[No. L- 12011 /216/2000- IR (B- II)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH Case No. I.D. No. 23/2001

The President,

Punjab National Bank Workers Union (NZ) , EG-810-A. Mohalla Gobindgarh , Jalandhar City ( Punjab) 144001 .......Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank , RegionalOffice, Delhi Road,

.....Respondent Rohtak (Haryana)

APPEARANCE

: None .

for the workman

: Sh . Ashok Sharma .

For the management

AWARD Passed on 31-5-2006

Central Government vide No. L- 12011/216/2000- IR (B - II ) dated 16-01-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

6495 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO II, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank , represented by Sr. Regional Manager, PNB, Rohtak in withdrawing payment of cyclostyling machine operator allowance, to Shri Attar Singh, Peon, w.e.f. April, 1998 and ordering recovery of allowance already paid w.e.f. July, 1997 to April , 1998 is just and legal ? If not to what other relief the workman is entitled to ? "

Reference :CGIT- 2/36 of 2000.

Employers in relation to the Management of Oriental Bank of Commerce

In this case of mgt Adv. Sh . Ashok Sharma is appeared.

The General Manager, OBC Regional Office, Western Region, Kama Nwala Chambers , 5th Floor, SirP.M. Road, Mumbai -400001 .

And

Their Workmen

2. None appeared on behalf of the workman even today. Learned AR of the management Shri Ashok Sharma requested that the present reference may be dismissed as workman is not interested in thisto persue and not appearing . I have also seen that workman did not appear on four dates earlier. Notice was also issued to the workman . It appears that workman or his advocate is not interested in persuing this case . Hence , the reference is returned for non- prosecution . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record.

TheGeneral Secretary, Oriental Bank of Commerce Employees Union , Jash Chambers , Gr. Floor,

Chandigarh: RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

SirP.M. Road, Fort,

Dt. 31-05-2006

Mumbai-400 001 .

Vinod K. Khuman

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2006.

APPEARANCE :

For the Employer

: M/ s . C.R. Naidu & Co. Advocate

For the Workman

: Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate .

Date of reserving Award : 9th May, 2006 .

Date of passing of Award : 23rd May, 2006 का.आ. 2840.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियन्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो 'केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

AWARD-PART- I

[सं. एल -12011/204/1999- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2006

TheUnder Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, (Bharat Sarkar) , New Delhi, sent this reference 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 to this Tribunal for adjudication and the Schedule of reference is as follows:

"Whether the action of the Management of Oriental Bank of Commerce to withdraw the Special Allowance payable to Shri Viond Khuman is legal and justified? If not, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to ? "

S.O. 2840. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.36/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, No. II , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 27-6- 2006.

[No. L- 12011 /204/1999- IR (B- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2. As per the case of the 2nd Party Workman the action taken of withdrawing the special allowances payable to Shri Vinod Khuman, 2nd Party Workman, by the 1st Party Bank on the basis of the alleged enquiry 6496

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

which was conducted on the basis of the chargesheet , is not legal and justified . To substantiate that, 2nd Party filed his Statement of Claim through Union at Exhibit 5 mentioning and stating that , 2nd Party Workman was working as " E " Grade Head Cashier at Kalbadevi Branch at Mumbai at the relevant time . During that period shortage of memory received in the branch was noted. He was working as head cashier in the branch . On 29th July, 1995 charge sheet was served after suspending him from the employment by order dated 21st May, 1995 of the charges of shortage of amount as mentioned on page 2 of Exhibit 5 viz .:

Date

Denomination No. of Notes

Total amount

4,500.00

20-8-1994 Rs . 500

Rs . 500

25,000.00

27-1-1995

170

Rs . 100

17,000.00

10-5-1995

2,000.00

15-5-1995 Rs . 100

500.00

Rs . 50

15-5-1995

considered and while rejecting the said appeal , Chief Manager waived the punishment clause of recovery of Rs . 27,000/- noted on account of the shortage of cash , from his salary but maintained the order of stoppage to Special Allowances of " E " Grade " Head Cashier " . According to Second Party Workman Union , the charges levelled against charge sheeted employee were baseless . He was not responsible for the shortage of amount as pointed out by the 1st Party. In fact shortage was at the Reserve Bank of India's level as said amount was received by the charge sheeted employee and Ist Party from ' Chief Currency Officer ' , Reserve Bank of India . He immediately noted shortage and informed to the Chief Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India . The enquiry was conducted in which it was observed that , the bundles of notes which were received by the charge sheeted employee and the Manager of the 1st Party from the Reserve Bank of India were new bundles of notes and absolutely intact and they were pinned recently. It was also reported that , those were not tampered with and pins were freshly pressed. Then it was also noted that, pink wrapper snugly fitted on the said bundles . Accordingly to 2nd Party Union as far as shortage of Rs . 27,000 is concerned , in new bundles of notes which were received from the Reserve Bank of India through the Central Cash Department on 27th January , 1995 is not concerned with the charge sheeted employee . Besidese other shortage of Rs . 2,000/- was noted during the tenure of Mr. C.S. Chawan who was working as a Clerk- cum - Cashier and for that charge sheeted employee cannot be held responsible . As far as other shortage noted at the complaint of the customer , regarding Rs 17,000/ - and Rs . 4500/- charge sheeted employee is not with the said customer did not inform alleged shortage immediately. Said customer kept quiet for days together after receiving the amount from the charge sheeted employee and did not lodge complaint in the prescribed days for which concerned employee cannot be held responsible as he keeps silent for days together about shortage which gives benefit to the charge sheeted employee and not to the customer.

3. According to the 2nd Party, enquiry was held against charge sheeted employee without following principles of natural justice . He was not asked to give explanation to the charges leveled against him . Enquiry was conducted hurriedly. No special appointment order was issued to the Enquiry Officer. Even Enquiry Officer did not advise the charge sheeted employee to submit his explanation . Documents like cash and cash summary book was not provided to the charge sheeted employee . The appeal of the 2nd Party Workman was also not considered by the Appellate Authority . The finding given by the Enquiry Officer on such type of enquiry is perverse . The Enquiry Officer was biased and were mentioned in it and charge under clause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 for doing the act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank was levelled against him . Shri C.A. Joseeph was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry of chargesheet issued against him . According to Union Second Party did not get an opportunity to submit his explanation on the chargesheet . Even list of documents and list of managements witnesses was not provided to Second Party Workman to see into the gravity of the charges . In support of that , though 1st Party has examined 3 witnesses , no sufficient opportunity was given to 2nd Party Workman to cross those witness and closing enquiry hastily it was observed by the Enquiry Officer that , 2nd Party was responsible for shortage of Rs . 25,000 and Rs . 2,000. However, Enquiry Officer acquitted the 2nd Party Workman from remaining charges . Show Cause notice was served on charge sheeted employee with the finding of the enquriy asking to him to show as to why punishment of stoppage of Special Allowance granted to him to the post of " E" grade ' Head Cashier ' and stoppage of any wage , allowance , annual increments and any other service benefits and recovery of Rs . 27,000from his salary should not be imposed upon him. By the said show cause notice he was also given an opportunity of personal hearing and after personal hearing the competent authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of Special Allowances of " E " Grade Head Cashier, increase in wages , allowances , annual increment and any other service benefits and recovery of Rs . 27,000/- was conferred. Being aggrieved by the said order charge sheeted employee preferred an appeal before the Disciplinary Authority and requested to set aside the said order. However , his appeal was not 6497 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

he gave finding to oblige 1st Party. When charge sheeted employee demanded time for cross, only period of 2 days were given observing that enquiry was to be completed at the earliest . This remark itself reveals that, Enquiry Officer and Ist Party were eager to punish the charge sheeted employee by hook or crook. Even report ofthe Branch in which the charge sheeted employee was working reveals that , it is not physically possible to count each and every bundle as on that day amount more than Rupees Nine Lakhs was received by the Ist Party and entire amount was kept in strong room of which one key is with the charge sheeted employee and one with Branch Manager of the said Bank. For the entire episode charge sheeted employee is not responsible and he alone cannot be held responsible . It issubmitted that, farce made by the 1st Party of holding enquiry, taking finding from the Enquiry Officer and punishing the charge sheeted employee of withholding special allowance of Cashier is illegal and an prayed that, this Hon'ble Tribunal to hold that the action of the 1st Party in withdrawing the Special Allowance to 2nd Party Workman is illegal and that the same be releasedfrom the date of withdrawal .

punishment of withholding of special allowance is maintained by the Appellate Authority exonerating the charge of shortage noted on the complaint of the customer who complained after some days from withdrawing amount . In fact Bank is sufferer . It bear all that shortage . Did not punish the Charge Sheeted Employee and just withheld special allowance , since he is not working now as Head Cashier. In fact relief was given by the Appellate Authority to the Charge Sheeted employee and now he cannot make any grievance about leniency shown by the 1st Party . As enquiry was conducted by following due process of law and evidence was before the Enquiry Officer to conclude that the Charge sheeted employee was responsible and he was held guilty of the misconduct . As leniency was shown and only meager punishment of withholding special allowance was maintained by the disciplinary authority against charge sheeted employee , now he has no voice to make grievance against 1st Party and its decision. So it is submitted that, the reference sent of withholding special allowance require to be rejected as it does not fall within the definition of ' industrial dispute ' i.e. u/sec . 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act .

5. In view of the above pleadings my Ld . Predecessor framed Issue at Exhibit 10. Out of them Issue Nos . 1 to 3 are treated as preliminary issues and ordering to decide those first by asking the parties to take note of it, which I answer as follows :

Issues

Findings

1. Whether the reference is not maintainable as averred in para- 5(g) of the Written Statement?

Yes

2. Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman was as per the Principles of Natural Justice?

3. Whether the finding of the inquiry officer are perverse?

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

6. Charge sheeted employee , through 2nd Party Union made out the case that enquiry conducted against charge sheeted employee was not fair and proper . The finding given on it is perverse. Action taken by the 1st Party of withholding special allowances is not legal and proper. Whereas case of the 1st Party is that, the subject matter of punishment of withholding special allowance of charge sheeted employee cannot fall under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act as that cannot be called as industrial dispute . To verify this let us see the definition Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and what it says .

"Sec. 2(k): " industrial dispute" means any dispute ordifference between employers and employers , or 4. This prayer is disputed by the 1st Party by filing exhaustive reply at Exhibit 9 denying the contention and contending that , enquiry conducted against charge sheeted employee was conducted by following principles of natural justice . It is contended that, full opportunity was given to the charge sheeted employee. He was aware of the proceedings . He was responsible for the amount received in the 1st Party's Branch as he was Head Cashier, He was custodian of the amount and responsible for the shortage of the amount. Sufficient opportunity was given to the Charge Sheeted Employee and there is no substance in the 2nd Party Union's say that , enquiry was conducted hastily and without giving proper opportunity to the charge sheeted employee. The charge of shortage of amount from the bundles given to the customer, who complained after some days was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and for that the charge sheeted employee was not held responsible . However, he was held responsible for the shortage of amount in the new bundles as said were handled by the 2nd Party only . It is noted that notes were skillfully removed from the bundles and for that he cannot be excused. The Branch Manager did not suspect any other staff member at that point . Even no doubt was taken against the charge sheeted employee . The said amount was received by the Bank. It was noted that in 5 packets 10 notes were missing at the Branch level . The pins were freshly pressed and the pink wrapper snugly fitted . The counting revealed that 10 notes in serial order were missing in five packets and for that he is held responsible . However, review applicațion was also considered by the Appellate Authority and just 6498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] between employers and workmen , or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non - employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, or any person : "

As per it industrial dispute means any dispute or difference between employers and employees.... Here the wording 'any dispute ' or ' any difference ' is covers under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act .

also contended that, finding was perverse since enquiry itself was not conducted by following the principles of natural justice. Whereas 1st Party submits that, enquiry was conducted by following principles of natural justice. Full opportunity was given to the chargesheeted employee . He did not examine himself, nor offered for cross. It is not shown how enquiry is not fair and proper. It is not pointed out that how principles of natural justice are not followed. Even in the proceedings itself, charge sheeted employee chose not to step into the witness box as happened at the enquiry level. Just he is taking about evidence of the 1st Party and purposely hiding himself away from the proceedings .

7. Here charge sheeted employee , through 2nd Party Union raises dispute , regarding punishment given to the chargesheeted employee of withholding special allowance of " E " Grade Head Cashier . So as per 2nd Party and concerned employee are concern decision taken by Ist Party of withholding special allowance of Cashier though he is working as a Cashier is difference or dispute between employer and employee and it is difference between employer and employee and it falls under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the competent authority has referred the said dispute to this Tribunal. In my considered view, this Tribunal is competent to try and entertain such a dispute . Apparently and prima - facie there appears dispute between the 1st Party and charge sheeted employee on which dispute is raised by 2nd Party Union . Accordingly to 2nd Party Union , chargesheeted employee's special allowance was withhold though charge sheeted employee is working as a cashier is not legal and proper. Whereas case of the 1st Party is that , merely giving such type of punishment i.e. of withholding special allowance of Cashier when charge- sheeted employee is not working as a Head Cashier though he is still as a cashier, is just and proper . As it was token punishment given to him and no other action was taken though 1st Party suffered loss , actually in terms of the deficiency of cash as well as in terms of ' good will ' and its ' reputation ' . Against that , charge sheeted employee , does not suffer any loss but to only loose special allowances that too is available to Head Cashier and not to all Cashiers . Besides chargesheeted employee is not working as Head Cashier . The Cashier who is working elsewhere , when he is not working as Head Cashier , he is not entitled for the said allowance ., However , there that is the dispute and difference . When Section 2(k) of Industrial Dispute Act cover any " dispute or difference " in my considered view , the reference sent by the Competent Authority or the grievance of the 2nd Party Union of tl.e charge sheeted employee is maintainable . So I answer this issue in the affirmative and observe that reference is maintainable .

ISSUE NO . 2 & 3 :

9. In that light if we peruse evidence placed on record by 1st party in the form of the documents , submitted at Exhibit 11 , we find , enquiry proceedings are placed on record along with finding of it . It is not disputed by the charge sheeted employee and 2nd Party Union . The evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer . As per that, the 1st Party, examined 3 witnesses and said fact is not disputed by the 2nd Party Union or charge- sheeted employee . Only by grievance of the Second Party is that , opportunity was not given to charge- sheeted employee to cross - examine these witnesses . For that if we peruse the stand taken by the 2nd Party Union that , only 2 days were given to cross - examine the witnesses observing that , enquiry is to be completed speedily, we find opportunity of two days was given to cross examine witnesses . Pausing for a moment, order was passed by the Enquiry Officer permitting charge- sheeted employee to cross -examine the witnesses within two days , question arises , how it can be said that opportunity was not given to him ? It is a fact that , period of 2 days was given . It does not mean that no opportunity was given at all as tried to be pointed out by the 2nd Party Union and chargesheeted employee . It records that two days time was given . It does not mean that time was not given . So in my considered view, there is no substance in making grievance saying that no opportunity was given to cross - examine the witnesses . Apart from that no evidence was led by the charge- sheeted employee .It is pertinent to note that, in the enquiry as well as before this Tribunal, chargesheeted employee chose to stay away from recording . The evidence either at the level of the enquiry as well as at the level of recording evidence in this reference is not enjoyed by the chargesheeted employee . It is pertinent to note that , there is only evidence of the management witnesses . Not a single witness is brought on record by the chargesheeted employee to substantiate his case . On that point citation referred by 1st Party Advocate of Supreme Court published in AIR 1999 SC p. 1441 while deciding the case of Vidhyadhar v/s Manikikrao and Ors. wherein it is observed that , " Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own 8. Second Party Union further states that , enquiry conducted was not just and proper and was not conducted by following principles of natural justice . It is 6499 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

Enquiry Officer nor before this Tribunal when the evidence was recorded in the reference when he got opportunity to step into the witness box and dispute the case of the 1st Party or made out his own case on oath .

case on oath , and does not offer himself to be cross- examined by the other side , a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct . This view does not support the act of Charge sheeted Employee of staying away from the Enquiry proceedings as it observed that , said decision of staying away from the inquiry is not just and legal .

12. In view of the discussions made above and the facts placed on record in the form of evidence by First Party, I conclude that, enquiry is fair and proper and finding not perverse . Accordingly I answer this Issue to that effect and pass the following order :

ORDER

(a) Enquiry is fair and findings are not perverse;

(b) I also observe that , Reference is maintainable;

(c) Both the parties are directed to appear in this reference on 27th July, 2006 for remaining Issues . Mumbai , A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer 23rdMay, 2006.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2006

10. Regarding the grievance made by the charge- sheeted employee that the documents were not provided viz. summary books for the last two years . However , on that it is not pointed and explained by chargesheeted employee for what purpose he was requiring cash summary books of last 2 years ? No intention is projected in asking for such a document neither in the arguments nor in the pleadings . In such a case view , taken by Apex Court while deciding the case of State Bank of Patiala & ors . v/ s S.K. Sharma published in 1996 II CLR page 29 by not producing documents which were demanded without any explanation or without pointing purpose behind it, does not vitiate the enquiry and lead to conclude that, it was not fair and proper. Even such non -production does not observed that , enquiry so conducted by violating the principles of natural justice as nothing is shown in what way such a non - production affect.

का.आ. 2841.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नैशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/ 151/1999- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2006

S.O. 2841. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2000 ) of the Cent . Govt. Indus . Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, New Delhi No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank (North Zone) and their workmen, received by the CentralGovernment on 28-6-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 151 / 1999- IR (B- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, No. 1 , NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 1/2000

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri Rajinder Kumar Sharma,

R/ o I - 12 , LIC Colony,

Dilshad Garden,

Workman

Delhi .

11. It is a matter of record that , enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer which is under challenge before this Tribunal . It is matter of record that Inquiry Officer recorded evidence and gave opportunity to the charge sheeted employee . In this situation our Hon'ble High Court while deciding the case of Cosmos India Rubber Pvt . Ltd. v/s Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha and ors . published in 1989 I CLR page 432 observed that, it is not open to the Labour Court , which is not sitting as a Court of Appeal , to sit upon judgement or finding of the Enquiry Officer , in domestic enquiry unless those findings were perverse . As per this ruling , unless and until those findings are perverse this Tribunal cannot sit asAppellant Court over the findings of the Enquiry Officer in the domestic enquiry. Here too , it is matter of record that, there was shortage of notes . It was brought to the notice of the chargesheeted employee . Facts reveal that , there was shortage , complaints were made at various levels . It is a matter of record that, charge sheeted employee was the Head Cashier during the relevant period. Definitely he being the Head Cashier, some responsibilities lies with him and for said shortage of amount if Cashier is held responsible , and charge- sheet was served, and enquiry was conducted, evidence was recorded and finding is given by the Enquiry Officer. On such exercise and on evidence if finding given by Enquiry Officer question arises , how it could be said that enquiry was not fair and finding perverse. As stated above , neither the 2nd Party Union nor charge- sheeted employee stepped into the witness box either 6500

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

Management P.N.B. , Z.O. Sector- 12/8 , Bank Square , Chandigarh- 160017.

: None for workman .

APPEARANCES

Shri T.C. Chaudhary Manager ( Law) , PNB

Formanagement .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No-L - 12012/ 151/99/IR (B - II) dated 29-9-1999 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication : -

"Whether the action of Dy. General Manager, Punjab National Bank , Zonal Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh and Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank, The Mall , Shimla in terminating the services of Sh . Rajinder Kumar Sharma S/ o Shri M. L. Sharma w.e.f. 1-5-97 is just and legal ? If not, what reljef the workman is entitled to ? " 2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman was appointed in the permanent capacity as clerk - cum-typist on 1-6-85 by the erstwhile New Bank of India at its Shimla branch and transferred to Delhi in November , 1987 and posted at R.K. Puram Branch , New Delhi . From R.K. Puram Branch he was transferredto Regional Office , New Delhi of the New Bank of India on 30-11-90. The New Bank of India was merged with the P.N.B. in September, 1993 as per Govt . of India notification and consequently all employees of the bank became the employees of the P.N.B. with continuity of service without any break. The management ofP.N.B. declared large number of New Bank of India employees in clerical cadre as surplus and transferred several employees from Delhi to far off places in U.P. , Rajasthan and other places in October/November, 1993 . The seperation from family and wife had caused lot of mental tension and depression to the workman and he had lost his mental equilibrium due to acute depression and mental problems of being living alone in isolation for a long time . It is stated by the workman that due to home sickness , mental problem and other various problems , the workman had to rush to Delhi where his wife and parents were residing . The workman had got two days leave sancitoned i.e. for 3rd and 4th December , 1996. After reacing Delhi the workman had got an attack of neurological problem and as such was not in a position to join duty. His ailment was so serious that it affected mental faculties of the workman . He got treatment from Col. Dr. C. Lal (Nita Clinic ) Ex. Army. and Railway Medical Officer and was declared fit by the said doctor to join duty from 25-11-1997. After the workman

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006 /ASADHA 31 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] was declared fit he reported for duty on 25-11-97 but the workman was not allowed to join duty and was told that his services had since been terminated by the Management .

3. Management filed written statement denying the claim of the workman and prayed that the workman is not entitled to the reljef claimed .

4. Written statement was followed for rejoinder wherein the facts mentioned in the written statement were denied and those of claim statement were reiterated to be correct.

5. The case was adjourned for cross examination of the workman on 17-6-03 and thereafter case has been adjourned for cross examination of the workman on various dates . Perusal of record shows that the workman has not been appearing in this case for the last so many hearing on 15-03-05, 31-5-05, 22-8-05 , 21-3-06 and 15-6-06 . It appears that the workman is not interested in the prosecution of this case . Hence No Dispute Award is passed. File be consigned to record room .

Further it is ordered that the requisite number of copies of this award may be forwarded to the Central Govt. for necessary action at their end .

Dated : 15-6-06 .

S.S. BAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 28 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2842.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरीयन्टल बैंक आफ कॉमर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/342/1997- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th June , 2006

S.O. 2842. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 122/98) of the Cent. Govt. Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, NewDelhi No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-6-2006.

[No. L - 12012/342/ 1997- IR (B - II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 6501 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत काराजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S.S. BAL : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO. 1, NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 122/98

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri Satbir Singh S/ o Lilla Singh

Peon- cum-Gunman ,

has not been sancitoned. The application for leave was also sent on 19-11-96 . It is further stated that the applicant workman on 3-12-96 sent a registered notice through his counsel against the order passed by the bank on 28-11-96 and the bank has not cared to send any reply thereto . It is further stated that the termination of service of the workman is illegal for the reasons given above. The management has not complied with section 25- F and 25 -G of the Act and retained as peons -cum- Gunmen who are juniors to the workman . It is , therefore , prayed that the award be passed in favour of the workman awarding him reinstatement with full back wages in the interest of justice.

Vashist Park , Opp . , Janak Cinema, R. Z. 60 -D , Gali No. 25 , New Delhi - 110 046.

Workman

Versus

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Govt. of India : Undertakings , Regional Office 8/1 , Abdul Aziz Road, W.E.A. Karol Bagh , Delhi .

Through its General Manager .

Respondent

APPEARANCES : Shri J. Buther for the workman.

Shri Sunil Parkash A/R for the

management

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/342/97-1.R. (B- 11) dated 21-4- 98 has referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Orintal Bank of Commerce in dismissing the services of Shri Satbir Singh w.e.f. 25-10-96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? י

2. The facts of the case as culled from record are that the workman- applicant was appointed as a peon- cum-Gunman in the bank on 16-6-82 . The applicant has served the bank faithfully and has a clean record of service . The applicant was neither served any charge sheet nor awarded any punishment during his long period of service . The workman was granted increments of pay every year in appreciation of his service .

3. In the written statement the management admitted that the workman was appointed as Peon - cum- Guard on 16-6-82 and not as Peon cum Gunman . In reply or para 2 it was stated that the workman was in the habit of avoiding to perform his duties on one pretext or the other and also in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent from his duty. It is also stated that the workman in cullusion with some other persons in the year 1995 tried to defraud the management bank. F.I.R. No. 303 of 1995 under Section 420 I.P.C. was also lodged at Naraina Police Station . In reply to para 3 it is stated that the workman was never granted any increment in appreciation ofhis services . The increments given to him were as per the rules and service conditions applicable to the workman. In reply to para 4 it is admitted that the name of the workman was struck off from the rolls of the bank on 28-11-96 and it is stated that in the case of cessation of services by the workman the provisions of section 25 of the Act does not apply and so no quesiton of compliance of the above said provisions arise . It is stated that the workman remained unauthorisedly absent from 28-10-95 when he was posted at Extension Counter GitaRattan Jindal Public School , Rohini. He was advised repeatedly vide registered A.D. letters dated 10-11-95, 16-12-95 and 12-3-96 to report for duties and to submit explanation for his unauthorized absence which he never did. The workman sent a letter dated 18-3-96 alongwith a medical certificate and on 27-3-96/2-4-96 the workman was advised to reoport within 3 days of the receipt of this letter on 25-10-96 the workman was issued a notice under the provisions of para 17 (A) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 and he was advised to report within 30 days of the date of issue of this notice. No reply was received to the notice nor the workman reported for duty. Hernice the name of the workman was struck off from the rolls of the management on 28-11-96 with retrospective effect .

4. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the controverted facts of the written statement were denied and those of claim statement were reiterated to be correct.

The respondent bank has struck of the name of the applicant-workman from the rolls of the bank without complying with the provisions of section 25 - F of the I.D. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . The applicant workman was ill and had submitted application for leave supported by Medical Certificate which were duly received by the bank . He was not informed that leave

2057 GI/2006-28 6502

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permited to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejucice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service . "

5. It is not disputed that the workman remained absent from duties w.e. f. 28-10-95 onward till he moved application dated 28-5-97 requesting the Assistant Manager to condone his absence because of his illness ofhiswife and to take him back on duty. He also placed on record his medical certificate from private clinic of Dr. K. Khastgir , M.B.B.S. of Friends Poly Clinic in respect of his illness and medical certificate of his wife dated 6-5-96 from Base Hospital Delhi Cantt. He was requested by the bank vide registered A.D. letters dated 11-10-95, 16-12-95 , 12-3-96 to report for duties and to submit his explanation for unauthorized absence . The workman sent a letter/application dated 18-3-96 alongwith medical certificate. He was again advised to report for duty within 3 days of the receipt of this letter on 27-3- 96/2-4-96 and to furnish explanation for his absence but he failed to do so and lastly the workman was issued notice under the provisions of Para 17 -A of Bipartite Settlement dated 17-4-89 advising him to report for duty within 30 days from the date of issue of the notice or to give satisfactory explanation in respect of his unauthorized absence but he failed to do so and thereafter the respondent informed the workman that his name has been struck of from the rolls of the respondent bank vide letter dated 28-11-96. Thus the services of the workman was terminated i.e. his name was struck off from the rolls of the respondent bank when he failed to report for duty within 30 days in respondent to the notice issued under the provisions of clause 17A of the Bipartite Settlement which are reproduced as under :

6. According to the said provisions the workman is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services if he fails to report for duty within 30 days from the service of the aforesaid notice and his name is struck of from the rolls of the service of the bank . The questions which require determination herein are ( 1 ) whether the said notice was served upon the workman and (2) whether the explanation tendered by the workman is satisfactory. In the instant case the respondent bank claims to have sent various letters to the workman dated 10-11-95, 16-12-96, 12-3-96, 27-3-96/2-4-96, requesting him to report for duty through postal receipts ( 1 ) dated 13-11-95, (2) dated 18-12-95 , (3 ) dated 26-7-95 (4) date not legible receipt No. 1423 , but the workman failed to report for duty despite the said letters and ultimately the workman was issued notice dated 25-10-96 to report for duty within 30 days from date of issue of notice . Workman did not report for duty despite said notice and thereafter the services of the workman were terminated vide order/ letter dated 28-11-96 . The respondent has placed on record postal receipts in respect of letters dated 25-10-96 and 28-11-96 . The notice dated 25-10-96 has been sent to the workman Satbir Singh , Peon- cum- clerk on his residential address RZ- 60D Gali No. 25 , Vashist Park, Delhi . The workman has also mentioned the said address in his claim statement and the said address is also mentioned in the reference order. The said address is as follows:

" Satbir Singh S/ o Lilla Singh , Peon-cum-Gunman, Rz 60- D Gali No.25 , Vashist Park, Opp. Janak Cinema , New Delhi- 110046 . "

7. In these addresses the words " Opposite Janak Cinema . " are also mentioned which are not mentioned in the address of the workman on above said letters which were sent by the management to the workman but the non mentioning of the said words i.e. " Opposite Janak Cinema" in the address on the letters to my mind does not make much difference as the letters sent through post on the address sans the words " Opposite Janak Cinema" will also reach the addressee (workman) and the same has been received by him . Letter posted to the correct address is presumed to reach its destination/ i.e . the addressee . In this case the letter has , been sent through post on the correct address of the workman and a presumption arises under the provisions of Section 114(f) of evidence Act. (see Illustration if to Section 114 "When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days , without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sancitoned originally / subsequently or when there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or when the management is satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employees at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the notice , stating interalia, the grounds or coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence , where available . Unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days of the notice or give and explanaltion for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no interntion of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice . In 6503 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

नईदिल्ली , 30 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2843,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 174/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-06-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/146/2001- आईआर (बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th June, 2006

S.O. 2843.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.174/ 2001) ofthe Cent . Govt. Indus . Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of Central Bank of India andtheir workmen, received by the Central Government on 30-06-2006.

[No. L- 12012/146/2001 - IR(B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present : Shrikant Shukla, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 174/2001 Ref. No. L- 12012/ 146/2001 - IR(B - II) Dt. 29-11-01 BETWEEN

Shri Kailash Kumar, S/o Sri Ramesh Kumar, Mohalla Lotanpura, Budaun (U.P. ) 243601

AND

The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, B-88 , Civil Lines, Bareilly (U.P. ) 343001 AWARD

(f) that the said letter sent through post has reached at its destination i.e. addressee (workman) and the same has been received by him . This fact that the letter has been received by the workman also receive corroboration from the workman's reply dated 28-5-97 wherein it is mentioned that he received some letters after some delay ( though he has not specifically mentioned as to which of the letters he received after delay. Therefore I am of the opinion that the notice dated 25-10-96 which has been sent to the correct address of the workman has been received by addressee i.e. workman and his statement that he did not receive the same is incorrect . This notice must have been received within a week or 10 days from its posting on 28-10-96 . It was sent at the local address within Delhi as any letter posted in Delhi ( Local Address) can be easily received by the addressee within such time but the workman did not furnish any reasonable explanation within one month in compliance of the notice dated 25-10-96 . The workman furnished explanation of his long absence from duty from 28-10-95 till 18-3-96 , that he could not report for duty during the period w.e.f. 25-10-95 to 18-3-96 due to his illness and illness of his wife . He submitted his medical certificate along with his application dated 18-3-96 that he suffered from Hypertension and Angina from the Friends Poly Clinic, Janak Puri , New Delhi 58 as well as the certificate of his wife showing that she has undergone operation for gyane problem and she has received treatment from Base Hospital Delhi Cantt . on 6-5-96 . It is thus evident that the workman has not furnished the certificate within one month from the receipt of the aforesaid notice as per provisions in para 17A of the Bipartite Settlement . The genuineness of these medical certificates have not been disputed by the management . Therefore it is evident that the workman as well as his wife were ill. It may be possible that due to their illness he has not been able to furnish his explanation within time but it appears that he has taken incorrect plea that he did not receive the aforesaid notice just to avoid the consequence . However, the delay if any in furnishing his explanation can be condoned in view of his long illness followed by the illness of his wife . I , therefore , am of the opinion that the action of dispensing with/ dismissing his service is too harsh and is not justified and legal and the same is liable to be set aside . The workman is , therefore , ordered to be reinstated in service .

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , Referred the following dispute No. L- 12012/ 146/2001 - IR(B - II) dated 29-11-01 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum - Labour Court, Lucknow :-- 7. There is no evidence that the workman has been employed gainfully during the period w.e.f. 25-10-96 onward till date . Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances it would serve the ends of justice if he is given 20% back wages .

"Whether the action of the management Central Bank of India, Bareilly in terminating the services of Sri Kailash Kumar S/o Ramesh Kamil Part time sweeper w.e.f. 10-11-99 is far and julled? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" Dated: 21-6-2006S.S . BAL, Presiding Officer 6504

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22, 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

any person on permanent or temporary post . The management has stated that it is false and incorrect to say that the worker was appointed in place of Ram Babu, Part time sweeper. It is further submitted that the story submitted by the worker is concocted. It is further submitted even Dy. Manager has no power to appoint any one at any service of the bank . It is submitted that the worker was supplying water to the bank and was paid the cost of the water and after doing this job some casual labours are required in particular branch for which they are duly paid according to the work taken from them. However it does not create any relationship of employer and employee . It is also submitted that the worker has not worked for 304days in a calender year .

The worker has filed following photo copies of the documents:

1. Worker's own application dt. 31-1-2000 , 24-5-2000, 18-6-2000 and 3-8-2000.

2. Bank's circular No. RP: RS : 2000-01 : 1387 dt . 17-8-2000.

3. Bank's response before ALC ( C ) Dehradun dt. 30-4-01 .

Worker has examined himself as witness .

Opposite party has filed affidavit of Sri S.P. Mehrotra Dy. Manager , Central Bank of India, Budaun During August 99 to June 2001 .

Worker or his representative has not turned up to cross examine Sri S.P. Mehrotra

It is pertinent to mention here than 6-7-2004 the worker examined himself and closed his evidence and 21-9-04 was fixed for evidence of the opposite party. On 21-9-04 the opposite party sought adjournment and therefore 22-12-04 was fixed for opposite party's evidence . On 22-12-04 the application paper No. D-28 was filed on behalf of the worker for adjournment which was allowed and the next date fixed was 4-4-05 for evidence of opposite party. On 4-4-05 the application paper No. D-29 was moved for adjournment of the case which was allowed and 12-7-05 was fixed for evidence . On 12-7-05 opposite party moved adjournment application which was allowed and 19-7-05 was fixed for evidence of the opposite party . On 19-7-05 none appeared for the worker and D-32 application moved for adjournment on behalf of the opposite party, therefore 23-8-05 was fixed for evidence . On 23-8-05 also the worker did not turned up and opposite party was present with Dy. Manager Sri S.P. Mehrotra therefore court ordered the case proceeded ex - party against the workman and 2-9-05 was fixed for opposite party evidence . Opposite party was directed to file affidavit of hiswitness on 2-9-05 . On 2-9-05 the opposite party filed Worker's case in brief is that he was engaged in the bank's service by the Branch Manager , Budaun in the clear vacancy of part time sweeper on 10-1-99 to 9-11-99. It is further stated that he was engaged in place of Ram Babu part time sweeper who was promoted as full time peon and posted at Bisharatganj , Bareilly Branch. It is further stated that he performed the duties of Subordinate Staff in whole day and bank has paid him daily wages @ Rs . 10/- per day. Thus he has put in for more than 304 days in a calendar year . Worker has stated that Dy . Manager S.P. Mehrotra of Budaun branch was taking his personal work from the worker as Coolie . He daily purchased 60 to 70 Kg foodable items from the market and forced the worker to carry the same from bank or market to Railway Station either on his shoulder or on bicycle . Railway station 1.5 Km far from the branch. Worker did so , but one day worker fell down with the luggage as he was not feeling well on that day . Mr. Mehrotra became very much angry on him. Next day the same problem was there , worker refused to carry the foldable items weight of them was not less than 70 kg. Dy. Manager Sri Mehrotra became very much angry on him and refused NOT TO COME BY TOMORROW. The worker reached on duty on 10-11-99 , But Dy. Manager , Sri Mehrotra did not allow him to Work. Worker asked for reasons for termination, but the Sri Mehrotra did not disclose the reasons to the worker for his termination for the bank service . Worker therefore approached the Branch Manager Sri M.M. Saxena but he showed his inability in interfering the branch matter . Sri Saxena informed that Dy. Manager Sri S.P. Mehrotra is empowered to take the decision in this matter. It is further stated that Sri Mehrotra engaged a junior to me namely Sri Vinay Kumar Rohil on 10-11-99 as a part time sweeper in my place , although union leader opposed it, but he did not listen them and instructed Sri Vinay Kumar Rohil to work as part time sweeper in the branch . Sri Vinay Kumar Rohil Paid Rs . 25/- per day for the worker ofpart time sweeper, Sri Mehrotra was paying me Rs . 10 per day for the same work. Worker represented on 31-1-2000 to Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Bareilly region informing him full facts but no response was given to the worker . Worker thereafter sent a reminder dt. 24-5-2000 narrating the full facts in this matter, but no response was given by the Regional Manager. Worker again representation 18-6-2000, 3-8- 2000 and requested for reinstatement in the bank's service but no response was given to him . Worker has therefore prayed that he should be reinstated in the bank's service and the difference of wages paid to him. He has further requested appropriate action be taken against Sri Mehrotra . Opposite party has filed written statement wherein the Management of the bank has denied the claim . It is submitted that the worker was never engaged by the Branch Manager Budaun on any post.Moreover branch manager has no power to engage [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

affidavit C-33 and the worker moved application C- 34 for setting aside order for ex -party hearing or 23-8-05 with affidavit. 24-11-05 fixed for disposal of C-34 . On 24-11-05 C-34 was disposed of and in the interest of justice ex- party order dt . 23-8-05 was setting aside at the cost of Rs . 200/ - and the next date fixed for opposite party evidence was 20-2-06 . On 20-2-06 opposite party's representative appeared worker remained absent and since presiding officer was on leave the case was fixed for opposite party evidence on 24-4-06. Worker remained absent on 24-4-06 worker also did not pay the cost for setting aside ex- party orderdt . 23-8-05 . It was therefore believed that the worker was not interested to contesting the case . 14-6-06 as fixed for opposite party's evidence . Opposite party was directed to file affidavit in support of his case . On 14-6-06 the opposite party's representative Sri C.K. Seth stated that opposite party has already filed affidavit paper No. C- 33 . Worker was to cross- examine the witness but the worker has not turned up nor his representative has turned up nor worker has paid cost as imposed on 24-11-05 . He has also stated that the cost was preconditioned for setting aside the ex- party order therefore the case shall be deemed to be proceed ex-party against the worker. Since the cost was not paid and the worker was not present therefore on 14-6-06 the case was again ordered to proceed ex-party against the worker and 15-6-06 ex - party argument is heard. I have perused the evidence on record carefully. Worker has stated in the cross -examination that he was given the appointment letter. However, the said appointment letter is in the possession of the bank on being questioned what salary was written in the appointment letter whether the salary was mentioned. The worker replied that the salary was not written in the appointment letter. The worker was asked whether the has moved any application for summoning the appointment letter to which the worker answered in negative.

On the one hand the worker states that he was appointed part time sweeper and has also stated that he was given appointment letter but no such appointment letter has been filed by the worker nor has been summoned from the bank . Worker testimony is not trustworthy as had the appointment letter being issued by the bank it could have narration about salary and the period for work if he was part time sweeper.

Worker on being questioned as to who appointed him in the bank, the worker stated that Sri S.P. Mehrotra appointed him. Thereafter he stated that Sri M.M. Saxena appointed him . He has not stated that who is appointing authority according to the bank regulations in the case of part time sweeper .

Worker has stated in his cross- examination that he was signing the attendance register and thereafter he denied his statement. He has also stated that he has not

6505

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31 , 1928

got the attendance register summoned. As the worker himself denied signing , on the attendance register therefore there was no question of getting attendance register summoned. Had the worker been part time sweeper he could have been asked to sign the attendance register for the purposes of his salary . He has also stated in the cross examination that he never attended the bank during the holidays in the bank .

It isnoteworthy that he was getting Rs . 10 per day on being questioned whether he complained against such payment the worker denied having made any complaint. He has also stated that he was not paid Rs . 10 per.day instead he was paid after a week or 15 days .

From statement of the worker it appears that he was a casual labour @ Rs . 10 pér day.

Sri S.P. Mehrotra has stated in affidavit that he was Dy. Manager in Central Bank of India during August 99 to 2001 and was posted in Central Bank of India, Budaun on the post of Dy. Manager. He has also stated that the worker Kailash Kumar never appointed in the bank nor Kailash Kumar ever worked in the Central Bank of India. It is further stated by him in affidavit that " It is wrong to say that Kailash Kumar was appointed part time sweeper on 10-1-99 to 9-11-99 . It is further false to say that Kailash Kumar was appointed part time sweeper in place of Ram Babu who was promoted as full time peon at Bareilly. " He has also stated that it is false to say that Kailash Kumar performed the duties of Subordinate staff and was paid wages @ Rs . 10 per day. "

Sri S.P. Mehrotra has also stated in his affidavit as follows:

That the Branch Manager of the Bank no powers to appoint any person at any post. It is further false to say that the deponent used to take personal work from Kailash Kumar. It is false to say that the deponent used to purchase 60-70 Kg. Foodable items and Kailash Kumar used to carry them and that it was the deponent who asked the applicant not to come to the bank . The story stated by the worker is totally false .

That Kailash Kumar used to supply water for which he was paid cost of the water.

That Kailash Kumar was never paid any wages .

That the deponent never seen Kailash Kumar worker at any post in the bank during his tenure .

That it is absolutely false and incorrect to say that Kailash Kumar worked in the bank for 324 days . As a matter of fact he did not work even for single day at any post in any capacity.

That it is again false and incorrect to say that Kailash Kumar was paid wages .

6506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 22 , 2006/ASADHA 31 , 1928

That as per records of the Bank no vouchers of payment in the name of Kailash Kumar are there.

That it is false to say that it was the deponent who on 10-11-99 asked the applicant not to work . Since the applicant never worked in the bank there was no such occasion. It is further false to say that the deponent engaged Vinay Kumar Rohil in place of the applicant.

Form carefully going through the evidence of the parties I come to the conclusion that worker used to supply water for which he was paid the cost of the water . Sri S. P. Mehrotra has not been cross examined and therefore there is no question to dis -believe his statement in affidavit. Worker has not filed any document or any other evidence to support his case that he was the employee of the bank and was paid Rs . 10 per day. Worker's own testimony is therefore not sufficient to prove that he was part time sweeper of the bank and was appointed as such as he has alleged in the statement of claim. Therefore there is no question of his termination by the bank authorities as alleged . The issue is therefore answered accordingly and the worker is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

Lucknow, the 26-6-2006 .

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2006

का.आ. 2844.-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 7/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।.

[सं. एल-22012/255/1999- आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th June , 2006

S.O. 2844. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2000) ofthe 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 ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2006.

[No. L- 22012/255 /1999-IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

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

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

PRESENT :

Shri Md . SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . 07 OF 2000 PARTIES

The Agent, Samla Colliery of

M/s. E.C.L. Pandaveshwar , Burdwan .

Versus

Asstt . General Secretary,

Koyala Mazdoor Congress ,

Asansol .

REPRESENTATIVES

For the Management : Sri S. P. Roy, Sr. P..O.

For the Union (workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor

Congress, Asansol .

Coal

Industry

State : West Bengal

Dated the 10-05-2006

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 -22012/255/ 99 - IR( CM - II ) dated 30-12-99 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of Management of South Samla Colliery, M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in not forwarding the age dispute in respect of Sri Munnilal Harijan, Locoseman to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

1 After having received the Order No. L- 22012/255 / 99- IR( CM- II) dated 30-12-1999 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 7 of 2000 was registered on 18-1-2000/10-10-01 and accordingly an order was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear and file their written statements along with the documents and the list of the witnesses in support of their case . In compliance of the said order notices through the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

6507 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत काराजपत्र: जुलाई 22, 2006/आषाढ़ 31, 1928

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 disposéd of.

MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer On perusal of the record it transpires that after having received the registered notice Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the union appeared on behalf of the workman and Sri S. K. Roy, Sr. P. O. South Samla Colliery appeared on behalf of the management along with the letter of authority duly authorized by Dy. CME/ Sri A. K. Dhar, South Samla Colliery and subsequently filed written statement on behalf of the management .

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2006

S. O. 2845.-In the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment Published in the Gazette of India Part -II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii) dated 4th March , 2006 vide S. O. No. 886 , the word "Kishanpur" shall be substituted by the word "Kishanpura".

From perusal ofthe record it tanspires that 7-3-06 was he date fixed for filing written statement on behalf of the union but the union remained absent and no step was taken on behalf of the union and Sri S. K. Pandey, the representative of the union submitted in the court that he has got no instruction from the side of the workman so he does not want to proceed with the case further. In such circumstance it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more specially when the workman and the union itself is not interested to proceed further with the case. As such it is hereby.

[No. S- 38013/ 11 /2006-SS . -I] K. C. JAIN, Director Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.