This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन) 04/0007/2003-05

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 35]

नई दिल्ली, अगस्त 27 सितम्बर 2, 2006 , शनिवार/ भाद्र 5- भाद्र 11 , 1928

No. 35]

NEW DELHI , AUGUST 27 -SEPTEMBER 2, 2006, SATURDAY/BHADRA 5- BHADRA 11, 1928 इस भाग मेंभिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

SeparatePaging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II-खण्ड 3- उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II-Section 3-Sub-section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 21st August, 2006 1

का.आ. 3454.- केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार के गृह ( जे ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं..40751 /जे2/2004/होम , तिरुवनंतपुरम दिनांक 28 मार्च, 2006 . द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्रीमती आयशा की हत्या से संबंधित मानान्थवाडी पुलिस स्टेशन, वायान्द जिला के अपराध सं. 294/95, जिसे अपराध शाखः सीआईडी, कोजीकोड के अपराध सं. 31 /सीआर/ 96 के रूप में संख्यांकित किया गया , में शामिल अपराधों और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा अधिक से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्योंसे उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण केरल राज्य पर करती है ।

S.O. 3454. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Kerala Home ( J ) Department vide Notification No. 40751 /J2/2004/Home ,Thiruvananthapuram dated 28th March 2006, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation of the offences involved in Crime No. 294/95 ofMananthavady Police Station , Wayanad District renumbered as Crime No. 31 /CR/ 96 of Crime Branch CID , Kozhikode relating to murder of Smt. Ayisha and attempts , abetinents and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with one or more ofthe offences mentioned above and any other offence or offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[सं. 228/ 16/2006- ए.वी.डी. - 11 ]

चंद्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव

[No. 228/ 16/2006- AVD- II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

2538 G1/2006

(7505) 7506

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3455. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. एचडी 101 पीसीआर 2006 , दिनांक 24 जून , 2006 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से ( 1 ) श्री रमेश गेल्ली , पूर्व अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक , पूर्व ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक , ( 2 ) श्रीधर सुबाश्री , पूर्व कार्यकारी निदेशक , पूर्व ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक , ( 3 ) श्री मोहम्मद शफी, पूर्व उपमहाप्रबंधक , पूर्व ग्लोबल ट्रस्ट बैंक, ( 4 ) श्री नदीम अहमद , प्रबंधक निदेशक, मैसर्स सीसीएल फ्लोवर्स लिमिटेड , ( 5 ) श्री नजीम अहमद , निदेशक, मैसर्स सीसीएल फ्लोवर्स लिमिटेड, और ( 6 ) श्री सी. श्रीनिवासन, मालिक , मैसर्स इंटर फ्लोरा फार्मस एण्ड एक्सपोर्ट तथा अज्ञात अन्यों एवं किन्हीं अन्य लोकसेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध कपटपूर्वक साख सुविधाएं प्राप्त करने और फलस्वरूप बैंक को 526.19 लाख रुपए का धोखा देने के लिए भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120- बी , सपठित धारा 409 एवं 420 , और भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 13(2) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी ) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों तथा तत्संबंधी सारभूत अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त अपराधों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है।

[सं. 228/43/2006- ए.वी.डी. - 11 ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st August , 2006

S.O. 3455. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Karnataka vide Notification No. HD 101 PCR 2006, dated 24th June , 2006 , hereby extends the powers djurisdiction ofthe members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 read with Sections 409 and420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Section 13 ( 2) read with 13 ( 1 ) ( d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( Act No. 2 of 1988) and substantative offences thereof, against ( 1 ) Shri Ramesh. Gelli , formerly Chairman and Managing Director , erstwhile Global Trust Bank, (2) Shri Sridhar Subasri , formerly Executive Director , erstwhile Global Trust Bank , ( 3) Shri Mohammed Shafi , formerly Deputy General Manager , ersthile Global Trust Bank, (4) Shri Nadeem Ahmad , Managing Director , M/ s . CCL Flowers Limited , (5) Shri Najeem Ahamad , Director, M/ s . C.C.L. Flowers Ltd. and (6) Shri C. Srinivasan, Proprietor, M/s . Inter Flora Farms and Exports and unknown others , for fraudulently obtaining credit facilities and thereby cheated the bank to the sum of Rs . 526.18 lakhs and any other public servents or persons in relation to, or in connection with the said offences , any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising outof the same facts .

[No. 228/43/2006-AVD - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3456.- केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केरल राज्य सरकार के गृह ( एम ) विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 4291 /एम3/2004/होम , दिनांक 4 अप्रैल , 2006 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से सीबीसीआईडी , एसआईजी- II एरनाकुलम द्वारा भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120-बी , 459 , 471 , 420 और 34 के अधीन दर्ज अपराध सं. 275/सीआर/ एस 11 /03 और उपर्युक्त अपराधों में से एक अथवा एक से अधिक अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्योंसे उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध अथवा अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण केरल राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/28/2006- ए.वी.डी. II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st August, 2006

0 S.O. 3456.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Kerala Home ( M) Department vide NotificationNo. 4291 /M3 /2006/Home, dated 4thApril , 2006, hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for investigation of Crime No. 275/CR/ SII/03 registered by CBCID , SIG - II , Ernakulam under Sections 120-B , 468 , 471 , 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 (45 of 1860 ) and attempts abetments and conspiracies connection with one or more of the offences mentioned above and other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/28/2006- AVD- II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

7507 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्त, 2006

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग )

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 3458.- जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का43 ) (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 जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ.. 354 (अं ) के जरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधि सूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित कीहै;

का.आ. 3457.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए हरियाणा राज्य सरकार के गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 20/1/2006-3 एचजी-1 , दिनांक 12 जुलाई , 2006 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से औषधि एवं प्रसाधन सामग्री अधिनियम , 1940 ( 1940 का अधिनियम सं. 23 ) की धारा 16, 17 , 17ए, 17 बी , 18 बी और धारा 18 के खंड ( सी ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के सहयोग से औषधि निरीक्षक , सोनीपत , हरियाणा द्वारा मैसर्स डी. के. लैबोरेटरीज , एसजीसी-3 , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , मुर्थल , सोनीपत , हरियाणा के परिसर में 4फरवरी , 2006 को किए गए निरीक्षण के संबंध में तथा उक्त मामले में उपर्युक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न , दुष्प्रेरण और षडयंत्र के अन्य अपराध ( अपराधों ) तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उसी तथ्य अथवा तथ्यों से उद्भूत उक्त अपराध (अपराधों) के अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्योंकी शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण हरियाणा राज्य पर करती है ।

और जबकि मैसर्स जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , जिनका पंजीकृत कार्यालय 28/21 , डिमोन्ट कॉलोनी, अलवरपेट, चेन्नई-600018 में है वह सर्वे सं. 14- पी ( पार्ट ) , ग्राम कोण्डापुर , सर्लिंगमपल्ली , हाइटेक सिटी रोड , माधापुर , जिला रंगारेड्‌डी, आन्ध्र प्रदेश -500032 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है;

[सं. 228/44/2006- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 13-12-2004 के पत्र सं. 15/40/04- आई पी एंड आई डीके अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

New Delhi , the 22nd August, 2006

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 जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं 191/2006/फा.सं. 178 /76/2005- आ.क.नि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: सर्वे सं. 14-पी(पार्ट ) ,

ग्राम कोण्डापुर, S.O. 3457. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government ofHaryana Home Department vide Notification No. 20/ 1/2006-3HG- I dated 12th July, 2006, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana for investigation of the offences under Sections 16 , 17 , 17À , 17B, 18B and clause (c) of section 18 ofthe Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940 ), relating to the inspection conducted by Drugs Inspector , Sonipat, Haryana in association with the Central Bureau of Investigation in the premises of M/ s D.K. Laboratories , S.G.C. - 3 Industrial Area, Murthal , Sonipat, Haryana on 4th February, 2006 and other offence (s ) ofattempt, abatement and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offence(s) committed in course of the same transaction or arising out of the same fact or facts , in relation to the aforesaid case .

सर्लिंगमपल्ली, हाइटेक सिटी रोड, माधापुर ज़िला रंगारेड्डी आन्ध्र प्रदेश-500032 [No. 228/44/2006-AVD- II ]

:25897.03 वर्ग मीटर

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

7508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

समूह क

892 ख

893 ग

894 (v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 90.18% प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए : 9.82% निर्धारित भूमिः का प्रतिशत

: 30 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 60 करोड़

(viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशि रुपए में )

( ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश : 37.50 करोड़ (राशिरुपए में )

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

(राशिरुपए में )

(xi) औद्योगिक 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 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 , टेलिकाम 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 ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैसग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

श्रेणी

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

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

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 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 ) ( 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 जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज़ प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई 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 औद्योगिक पार्क योजना 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई 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 । [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

10. यदि मैसर्स जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई (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 ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ- साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम , 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 यदिमैसर्स जयभेरी प्रॉपर्टीज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, चेन्नई औधोगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है।

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) NewDelhi , the 24th July, 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 3458.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of Sub- section (4) of Section 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 notification oftheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion) vide number S.O. 193 (E), dated the 30thMarch, 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 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day ofMarch, 2006;

7509

भारत का राजपत्र: सिवाम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

And, whereas, M/s . Jayabheri Properties Private Limited,havingregistered office at 28/21 , Demonte Colony. Alwarpet, Chennai -600018, is developing an Industrial Park atSurveyNo. 14-P(Part), Village Kondapur , Serlingampally, Hi -tech CityRoad, Madhapur, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh-500032;

And,whereas, the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/40/04- IP & ID dated 13-12-2004 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, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Jayabheri Properties Private Limited, Chennai , as an industrial park for the purpose of the said clause(iii).

[Notification No. 191 /2006/F.No . 178/76/2005 - ITA-1]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

The terms and conditions on which the approval of theGovernment of India has been accorded for setting up ofan industriai park by M/s . Jayabheri Properties Private Limited, Chennai .

: Jayabheri Properties Private Limited

1. (1) Name ofthe Industrial Undertaking

Survey No. 14-P(Part), (ii) Proposed location :

VillageKondapur, Serlingmpally,Hi -tech City Road,Madhapur, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh 500032

25897.03 Square Meters (iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature ofIndustrial activity with NIC Code

NICCode

Section

S.No.

Division

Group

892

893

894 C

Description

Class

DataProcessing, Software Development and Computer Consultancy Services Business and management consultancy activities

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities.

7510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

90.18%

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

ofsub-section (4) of Section 80 - IA ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

9.82%

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

30Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

60 crores

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park isdelayed 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 undersub-section 4 ( iii) of Section 80 - IA ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 .

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

: 37.50 crores

(1x) Investment on built up space for industrial use

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Jayabheri Properties Limited, Chennai shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(Amount in Rupees)

54.87 crores

(x) Investment on Infrastructure :

(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.

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

: June , 2005

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

(xi) Proposed date of Commencement ofthe 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 .

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

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

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 Govemment may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Jayabheri Properties Private Limited, Chennai , 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 ofthe applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park.

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table given in sub - patagraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S. O. 354 (E) dated the 1st April , 2002, shall occupy more than fiftyper cent ofthe 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 .

नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई, 2006 (आयकर)

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 I (vii ) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s . Jayabheri Properties Private Limited, Chennai , shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii )

का. आ. 3459, 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 जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7511.

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

और जबकि मैसर्स फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड , 4/1 , रैड क्रॉस प्लेस, कोलकाता-700001 , प्लॉट सं. 4, ब्लॉक-बी पी, सैक्टर- V, बिधान नगर , सॉल्ट लेक सिटी, जिला-नॉर्थ 24 परगना , पश्चिम बंगाल-700091 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 13-4-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/156/2005 - 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 फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड , कोलकाता द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं 195/2006/फा.सं. 178/58/2006- आ.क.नि.- I ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड, कोलकाता द्वारा, औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: प्लॉट सं. 4,

ब्लॉक-बी पी , सैक्टर- V,

बिधान नगर, सॉल्ट

लेक सिटी, जिला-नॉर्थ

24परगना, पश्चिम

बंगाल-700091

: 61486 वर्ग मीटर (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

: 92.00%

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

: 8.00%

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

: 5 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

: 118.00 करोड़ (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशिरुपए में )

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

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

: 23-3-2006 (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 विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. अब 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 शामिल हैं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त 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

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

समूह अनुभाग

752

892

ख

893

ग

विवरण

श्रेणी

दूरभाष संचार सेवाएं

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर परामर्शी सेवाएं

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप 7512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 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 कानूनों के 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 देगा ।

New Delhi , the 26th July, 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्डके 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 है , 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 फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड , कोलकाता 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 ।

S.O. 3459.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii ) of Sub- section (4) ofSection 80-1A ofthe Income-taxAct, 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;

And whereas M/ s . Phoenix Software Limited, 4/1 , Red Cross Place , Kolkata- 700001 , is developing an Industrial Park at Plot No. 4, Block-BP , Sector - V, Bidhan Nagar, Salt Lake City, District- North 24 Parganas , West Bengal-700091;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 156/2005-1P & ID dated 13-4-2006 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध हो जाएगा और मैसर्स फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड , कोलकाता ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

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

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, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Phoenix Software Limited , Kolkata, as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii).

[Notification No. 195/2006/F.No . 178/58/2006- ITA- I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

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

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 . Phoenix Software Limited, Kolkata.

: Phoenix Software Limited

1. (1) Name ofthe

Industrial

Undertaking

10. यदि मैसर्स फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड, कोलकाता (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 ।

(ii) Proposed Location: Plot No. 4, Block-BP, Sector-V, Bidhan Nagar , Salt LakeCity, District- North 24 Parganas , West Bengal- 700091;

(iii) Area of Industrial : 61486 Square Metres Park

(iv) Proposed activities

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ-साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपोलन 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 फिनिक्स सॉफ्टवेयर लिमिटेड , कोलकाता औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल होगा । [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपल :

7513

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

S. Nor Section Division

Group 7

752 B

892 C

893

92.00% (v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use

8.00% (vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use :

5Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

110.00 crores (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees) :

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

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

23-3-2006

(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 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 2538 GI /06-2

Description

Class

Telephone communication services .

Data processing, software development and computer consultancy services.

Business and management consultancy activities.

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 thisNotification, are located in the Industrial Park .

7. M/ s . Phoenix Software Limited, Kolkata 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 corrimencement 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 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . Phoenix Software Limited, Kolkata, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

(i) the application on the basis ofwhich the approval isaccordedbythe 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 . Phoenix Software Limited, Kolkata, transfer the operation and maintenance of the industrial 7514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

park ( i.e. , the transferor undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Enterpreneurial 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 trensferor 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. Phoenix *Software Limited, Kolkata, fails to comply with any of the conditions ..

नई दिल्ली, 26 जुलाई , 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ 3460, 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 जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए 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 किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड , ऐम्बैसी स्टार 8 , पैलेस रोड , वसन्तनगर , बंगलौर-560052 , किर्लोस्कर बिज़नेस

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] पार्क, सर्वे सं. 52 , 54 , हैब्बल फार्म पोस्ट, कसाबा होबली , बंगलौर में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और , जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 19-4-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/154/2005 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क 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 किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड , बंगलौर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 196/2006/फा.सं. 178 /71/2006- आ.क.नि. -1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड , बंगलौर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड

(ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: किर्लोस्कर बिजनेस पार्क सर्वे सं. 52 , 54 , हैब्बल फार्म पोस्ट, कसाबा होबली , बंगलौर -560024

: 1,33,084.34 वर्ग मीटर (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

समूह अनुभाग

क

892 ख

893 ग

894 घ

895

ङ

विवरण

श्रेणी

संचार सेवाएं

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7515 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

(v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 90.05.% प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

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 । (vi) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए : 9.95% निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

7. मैसर्स किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स 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 ।

( vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 3 यूनिटें न्यूनतम संख्या

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशिरुपए में) :10279.00 लाख

( ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में) : 4844.00 लाख

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स लिमिटेड , बंगलौर , ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर : 8700.00 लाख निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान परं निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित्तिथि : 31-03-2006

( 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 ।

( 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 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, टेलिकाम नेटवर्क , विद्युत उत्पादन एवं विप्तरण , वातानुकूलन तथा ऐसी अन्य सुविधाएं जो औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

10. यदि मैसर्स किर्लोस्कर सिस्टम्स 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 ।

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 इकाईकिसी 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 ।

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 देनाः । 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 आएगा । 7516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 26th July, 2006.

(IncomeTax)

S.O. 3460.-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 notification 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 vide number S. O. 354 (E) dated the 1st day ofApril , 2002 for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/ s . Kirloskar Systems Limited, Embassy Star, 8 , Palace Road, Vasanthnagar , Bangalore-

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 560052 is developing an Industrial Park, at Kirloskar Business Park, Survey No. 52, 54, Hebbal Farm Post, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore ;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry Letter No. 15/ 154/2005 - IP & ID dated 19-04-2006 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 ofthe said Act, the Central government hereby notifies the undertaking , being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Kirloskar Systems Limited , Bangalore , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

[Notification No. 196/2006/F. No. 178/71 /2006- ITA-I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secу.

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 . Kirloskar Systems Limited , Bangalore.

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

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Kirloskar Systems Limited.

Kirloskar Business Park ,

Survey No. 52, 54, Hebbal Farm Post, Kasaba Hobli , Bangalore- 560 024

1,33,084.34 SquareMeter

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code Division

Section

Group S. No.

892

B 8

893 C 8

D 8

894

895 E 8

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

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

(ix) Investment on built 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 :

90.05%

9.95%

3Units

10279.00 lakhs

4844.00 lakhs

: 8700.00 lakhs

31-03-2006

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

7517

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial AssistanceUnit ofthe 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 undertak- ing for the aforesaid transfer.

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure de- velopment 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 mini- mum 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, gen- eration 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.

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. Kirloskar Systems Limited, Bangalore, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

12.Anyamendment of the project plan without the approval of the Central Government or detection in future, or failure on the part ofthe applicant to disclose any material factwill invalidate the approval of the industrial Park.

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 dis- tinct entity for the purpose of one and more state or Cen- tral taxlaws .

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2006 (आयकर)

5. Necessary approvals . including that for for- eign 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 e 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 ofonly after the number of units indicated in Para 1 ( vii) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park.

7. M/s. Kirloskar Systems 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 801A ofthe Income -tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

का.आ. 3461.- 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 जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार, वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधि सूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित कीहै;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र थानागाजी, अलवर , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क काविकास कर रहा है;

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year from the date indi- cated 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 801A ofthe Income Tax Act , 1961 .

9. The approvalwill be invalid and M/s. Kirloskar Systems Limited, Bangalore , shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity, if

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 28-10-2006 के पत्र सं. 15 /105/05 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

(i) the application on the basis of which the ap- proval is accorded by the Central Govern- ment contains wrong information/misinfor- mation 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 .

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शाक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं 198/2006/फा.सं. 178/21 /2006- आ.क.नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 10. In case M/ s . Kirloskar Systems Limited , Bangalore , transfers the operation and maintenance ofthe industrial park ( i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking) , the transferor

م 7518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006 /BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

: 1 ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान :

औद्योगिक क्षेत्र थानागाजी , अलवर, राजस्थान

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल :

33.12 एकड़

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क

2और 3

विनिर्माण गतिविधियों (v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र :

90%

का प्रतिशत

10%

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

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या :

30 यूनिटें

117.50 लाख

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश : (राशिरुपये में)

शून्य

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

82.50 लाख

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक

उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपये में)

31-03-2006

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों , जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना में विकास परन्यूनतम 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 ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिदिष्ट संख्या में इकाइयों के औद्योगिक पार्क में अवस्थित होने के उपरान्त ही इस अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत कर लाभ प्राप्त हो सकते हैं । 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 है जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टिसे निर्धारिणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 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 निदिष्ट 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 । 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 । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7519

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ মার 11 , 1928

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रया 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड ( 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 नीतिऔर संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन, नई दिल्ली -11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 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 असफल रहना , औद्योगिक पार्क के अनुमोदन को अवैध बना देना ।

New Delhi, the27th July, 2006 (INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 3461.-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 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 forthe periodbeginning on the 1st day ofApril , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006;

And whereas M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. , Udyog Bhavan, Tilak Marg , Jaipur is developing an Industrial Park, at Industrial Aera Thanagazi , Alwar, Rajasthan;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry Letter No. 15/105/2005 - IP & ID dated 28-10-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) ofsub- section (4) of Section 80- IA ofthe said Act, the Central Governinent hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. , Udyog Bhavan , Tilak Marg, Jaipur as an Industrial park for the purposes ofthe saidclause (iii) .

[Notification No. 196/2008/F . No. 178/21 /2006- ITA- I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

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 and Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

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

(iii) Total Area of Industrial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited,

: Industrial Area Thanagazi , Alwar, Rajasthan

33.12 Acres

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Division

Group Section

No.

2&3

Description

Class

Manufacturing activities [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

7520

: 90%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

the Industrial Park during the period in which the benefits under clause ( iii ) ofsub - section (4) of Section 80- IA ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

: 10%

(vi ) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

: 30 Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

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

: 117.00 lakhs

(viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in rupees)

: Nil

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

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

: 82.50 lakhs

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

(Amount in Rupees)

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

(xi).Proposed date of commence- ment of the Industrial Park

: 31-03-2006

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

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

10. In case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Develop- ment and Investment Corpoation Limited, transfers the op- eration and maintenance of the industrial park ( i.e. transfer undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee un- dertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly inti- mate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secre- tariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog Bhawan , New Delhi - 11 along withacopy of the agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

3. Infrastructure development shall include roads (in- cluding approach roads ) , water supply and sewerage com- mon effluent treatment facility , telecom network, genera- tion 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.

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 underthis scheme are to be availed . The Central Government may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpoation Limited, fails to comply with any ofthe conditions .

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 ofthe 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.

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.

नई दिल्ली , 27 जुलाई 2006 (आयकर)

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 .

7. M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpoation Limited , shall continue to operate

का.आ. 3462.- 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 जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए 7521 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाग 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 17-11-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 118/05-आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए भारत सरकार , वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधि सूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित कीहै;

अब इसलिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपधारा (4) के खंड ( iii) द्वारा प्रदत्त शाक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वास विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है । और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जिनका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है , आईआई डी सेंटर , बयाना, जिला भरतपुर , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में [अधिसूचना सं 199/2006/फा.सं. 178 /24/2006 - आ.क.नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1 ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम :

( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

आई आई डी सेंटर , बयाना , जिला भरतपुर , राजस्थान

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

66.72एकड़

(iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

क्रमसं.

समूह

अनुभाग

क

2और 3

विनिर्माण गातिविधियाँ

99.53%

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

0.47%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

30यूनिटें

975.24 लाख

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश (राशिरुपये में)

शून्य

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

558.69 लाख

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

31-3-2006

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

2538 G1/06-3 7522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 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 ।

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 है जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणिय एवं प्रयुक्त 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 अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है को प्रवृत्त 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 एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर 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 ।

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रया 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ( अर्थात अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 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 नीतिऔर संवर्धन विभाग , उद्योग भवन , नई दिल्ली-11 की उद्यमशीलता सहायता यूनिट की संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

II . इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ - साथ औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 मे 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 मेंविहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालनप में असफल रहता है ।

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2006. (INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 3462.-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 of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day ofMarch , 2002 and vide number S. O. 354(E) dated the Ist day of April , 2002 for the 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 Developent & Investment Corporation Ltd. , having registered office at Udyog Bhavan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur 302 005 is developing an Industrial Park, at IID Centre, Bayana , District Bharatpur, Rajasthan ;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce.and Industry Letter No. 15/ 118/ 2005 - IP & ID dated 17-11-2005 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 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being developed and being maintained and operatedby M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Developent & Investment Corporation Ltd. , Jaipur as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii) .

[Notification No. 199/2006/F . No. 178 /24/2006- ITA- I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

भारत का राजपत्र :

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7523

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

ANNEXURE

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

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

(iii) Area of Industrial Park

(v) Proposed Activities :

: Rajasthan State Industrial Develop- ment & Investment Corporation Limted, Jaipur.

IID Centre , Bayana , District Bharatpur , Rajasthan : 66.72 acres

Natureof Industrial activity with NIC Code

NICCode

Division

Section

Group.

Sl. No.

A 2& 3

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units (viii) Total investment proposed (Amount in Rupees)

(ix) Investment on 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) Proposeddate of commencement of the Industrial Park

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure devel- opment in an Industrial Park shall not be less than 50% of the total project cost . In the case of an Industrial Park whichprovides built -up space for industrial use . The mini- mum 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 (in- cludingapproach roads): Water supply and sewerage com- moneffluent treatment facility , telecom network, genera- tion 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 com- mercialterms.

4.No single unit referred to in column (2) of the Table givenin sub -paragraph (b ) of paragraph 6 of S.O. 354 (E ) dated the 1stApril, 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 andprocedures in force.

Description

Class

Manufacturing Activities

99.53%

0.47%

30Units

975.24 lakhs

Nil

558.69 lakhs

31-03-2006

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 Corpoation 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 of the Industrial Park isdelayed by more than one year from the date indi- cated 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 of the Income Tax Act . 1961 .

9.Theapproval will be invalid and M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpoation Limited, Jaipur shall be solely responsible for any reper- cussions of such invalidity, if-

(1) the application on the basis of which the ap- proval is accorded by the Central Govern- ment contains wrong information/misinfor- mation 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 inthe name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Develop- ment & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur, transfers 7524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park (i.e. , transferrer undertaking ) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transferee undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit ofthe Secretariat for Industrial Assistance . Department of Indus- trial 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 trans- fer.

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 Govern- ment may withdraw the above approval in case M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Invest- ment Corporation Limited , Jaipur , 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.

नई दिल्ली , 27 जुलाई , 2006

(आयकर )

का.आ. 3463. 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 शाक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा

अनुबंध

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 31 मार्च, 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जरिए तथा 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के जरिए 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 एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जिनका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर-302005 में है , आई आई डी सेंटर , खुस्खेड़ा, औद्योगिक क्षेत्र ( भिवाड़ी ) , जिला अलवर , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखत नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 22-11-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 132/05- आई पी एंड आई पी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

अब , इसलिए , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ क की उपध ारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शाक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ औद्योगिक पार्क के रूप में मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है । [अधिसूचना सं. 200/2006/फा.सं. 178/9/2006-आ.क.नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1 ( i ) औद्योगिक उचक्रम का नाम

( ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

आई आई डी सेंटर , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , खुस्खेड़ा , ( भिवाड़ी ) , जिला अलवर , राजस्थान

151.77 एकड़

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

क्रम सं.

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

समूह क 2और 3

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

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण गतिविधियाँ 99.55%

4.43% [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7525

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या : 30यूनिटें

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में ) : 1585.56 लाख

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

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामित है (राशिरुपए में ) : 1177.66 लाख

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 31-03-2006

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 है जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से मिर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल, 2002 की का.आ. 354 (अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप.पैराग्रफ ( 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 अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अंतर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है को प्रवृत्त नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

6. इस अधिसूचना के पैरा 1 ( vii ) में विनिदिष्ट 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 एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80झक की उपधारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ऐसी अवैधता की किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा, यदि

10. यदिमैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, 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 नीतिऔर 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 मे शमिल 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एण्ड इन्वेस्टमेंट कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर 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 गयाकोई 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 । 7526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 27th July, 2006

(Income-Tax)

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 un- dertaking, being developed and being maintained and op- erated by M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii) .

[NotificationNo. 200/2006/F . No. 178/09/2006 ITA - 1 ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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

S.O. 3463. Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub- sec- tion(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 notifica- tions of the Government of India in the Ministry of Com- merce 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 num- ber S.O. 354( E) dated the 1st day of April , 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day of April 1997 and ending onthe 31st day ofMarch , 2006;

Rajasthan State Industrial

1. ( i) Name of the Industrial undertaking

Development & Investment Corporation Limited , Jaipur .

(ii) Proposed location :

And, whereas , M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office of Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial Park at IID Centre . In- dustrial Area Khuskhera (Bhiwadi ), District Alwar , Rajasthan;

IID Centre , Industrial Area Khuskhera (Bhiwadi) , District Alwar, Rajasthan ,

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park 151.77 acres

(iv) Proposed activities :

And, whereas , the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 132/05 - IP& ID dated 22-11-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NICCode

Description

S. No. Section

Division

Class

Group

2& 3

Manufacturing activities .

: 95.57%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

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

: 31-03-2006 : 4.43%

(xi) Proposed date of com- mencement of the Industrial Park

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

: 30 Units

(vii ) Minimum number of industrial units

Rs. 1585.56 lakhs

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

2. The minimum investment on infrastructure devel- opment 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 mini- muin expenditure on infrastructure development including cost of construction of industrial space , shall not be less than 60% of the total project cost .

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

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads) , water supply and sewerage, common effluent treatment facility , telecom network, (x) Investment on Infrastructure : Rs . 1177.66 lakhs Development including- 7527 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

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 com- mercial terms .

11. The conditions mentioned in this notification as wellas 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 Govern- ment may withdraw the above approval in case M/s. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Invest- ment Corporation Limited, Jaipur , fails to complywith any of the conditions .

4.Nosingleunit 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 ofthe 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.

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 mate- rial fact, will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2006 (आयकर)

5.Necessary approvals , including that for foreign direct investment or non -resident Indian investment by the Foreign 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.

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 801A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

का. आ. 3464, 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 31 मार्च , 2002 को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 ( अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के जज्रिए 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 ( औधोगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

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 re- quiredunder the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availing benefits under sub-section 4(iii ) of Section, 801A 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 reper- cussions of such invalidity, if

और जबकिमैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी (इंडिया) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, जिनका पंजीकृत कार्यालय दिव्यश्री चेम्बर्स , विंग ए, लाँगफोर्ड रोड और नं. 11 ओशॉग्नैसी रोड , बंगलौर में है , ने नं. 11 , ओशॉग्नैसी रोड, बंगलौर-560025 में ' दिव्यश्री चेम्बर्स ' नाम से एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास किया है;

(i) the application on the basis of which the ap- provalisaccorded by the Central Government containswrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been pro- vided in it.

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखत नियम और शतों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 21-04-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/74/2005- 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 80झक 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 श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी (इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बंगलौर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 201/2006/फा.सं. 178/82/2005-आ.क.नि. -1] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 10. In case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Develop- ment & 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 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 .

7528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/ BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

अनुबंध

: दिव्य श्री चैम्बर्स , नं. 11 ओशॉग्नेसी रोड, बंगलौर-560025 शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , बंगलौर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क के गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

: 5,11,632.00 वर्ग फुट 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

: मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बंगलौर

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

विवरण

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

अनुभाग

समूह

क्रम सं.

क

संचारसेवाएं

ख

892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

ग

893

कारोबार तथा प्रबंधन कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप घ

894

वास्तुशिल्पीय तथा इंजीनियरी एवं अन्य तकनीकी कंसलटेंसी कार्यकलाप

895

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं : 94.34%

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

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 ।

5.66%

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

: 3 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

: 85.00 करोड़

3. संरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सीवरेज, 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 एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में )

: 60.93 करोड़

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

71.88 करोड़

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 ।

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

: 28-02-2002

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा यथा समय प्रवृत किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा । 2. किसी औद्योगिक पार्क में अवसंरचना विकास पर न्यूनतम, निवेश कुल परियोजना लागत के 50% से कम नहीं होगा । ऐसे [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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 80झक 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 80झक की उप- धारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) 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 । (ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले हीप्रदान किया गया है ।

10. यदि मैसर्स श्यामाराजू एण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट 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 नीतिऔर 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 श्यामाराजू एंण्ड कंपनी ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, बंगलौर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम, 2002 में विहित शता 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 ।

2538 G1 /06-4

7529

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2006 (INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 3464. 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 . 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 ofMarch , 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. Shyamaraju & Company ( India) Private Limited, having registered office at Divyasree Chambers , Wing A , Langford Road and No. 11 , O'Shaugnessy Road , Bangalore , is developing an Industrial Park namely , ' Divyasree Chambers ' at No. 11 , O'Shaugnessy Road , Bangalore - 560025;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15 /49 /2005- IP & ID dated 21-4-2006 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, being developed and being maintained and operatedby M/s . Shyamaraju & Company (India) Private Limited, Bangalore , as an Industrial Park for the purposes ofthe said clause ( iii ) .

[Notification No. 201 /2006/F . No. 178 /82/2005 - ITA- I ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy. 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 .

: M/ s. Shyamaraju & Company ( India) Private Limited

1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

(ii) Proposed location : Divyasree Chambers No. 11 O' Shaugnessy Road, Bangalore-560025- (iii) Area of Industrial : Park 5,11,632,00 Square Feet (iv) Proposed activities 7530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006 /BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)] Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC Code

NIC Code

Description

S.No.

Section Division

Class

Group

Communication services

892

Data Processing , Software Development and Computer Consultancy Services C

893

Business and management consultancy activities

894

Architectural and engineering and other technical consultancy activities E

895

Technical testing and analysis services .

: 94.34%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

: 5.66%

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 .

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

: 3 Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

85.00 crores

(viii) Total investments proposed : (Amountin Rupees)

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.

60.93 crores

(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 I ( vii ) of thisNotification , are located in the Industrial Park .

(x) Investment on Infrastructure : 71.88 crores

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

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 80IA of the Income -tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

: 28-02-2002

(xi) Proposed date of com- mencement of the Industrial Park

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 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

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.

9. The approval will 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 accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/ misinformation or some material information has not been provided in it ;

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

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

7531 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

कीहै ;

और , जबकि, मैसर्स मेगरपट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेन्ट एंड कन्स्ट्रक्शन कम्पनी लि. , मेगास्पेश 13 , शोलापुर बाजार रोड , ऑफ ईस्टस्ट्रीट, पुणे -411001 साइबर सिटी मेगरपट्टा , 143 , मेगरपट्ट्टा, सिटी हदापसर , पुणे-411028 , महाराष्ट्र में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है;

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.

और, जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार, ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 1-9-2004 के पत्र सं. 15/34/2003- आई पी एंड आई डी के 'अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

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 . Shyamaraju & Company ( India) Private Limited , Bangalore , fails to comply with any of the conditions.

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 मेगरपट्ट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेन्ट एंड कन्स्ट्रक्शन्स कम्पनी लि. , पुणे द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं 216/2006/फा.सं. 178/13/2006- आ.क.नि. -1 ] 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 ofthe industrial park.

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2006 (आयकर)

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स मेगरपट्‌ट्टा टाऊनशिप एंड कन्स्ट्रक्शन कम्पनी लि. , पुणे द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है :

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : मेगरपट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेंट एंड कन्स्ट्रक्शन कम्पनी लि. ,

(ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: साइबर सिटी मेगरपट्टा , 143, मेगरपट्टा, सिटी हदापसर , पुणे-411028 , महाराष्ट्र

: 52,666.82 वर्ग मीटर का. आ. 3465. जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 (1961. का 43 ) ( यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 80झक 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

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

समूह

अनुभाग

क्रम सं

892.2

क

892

साफ्टवेयर आपूर्ति सेवाएं

: शून्य : 100%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

:12यूनिटें (v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vii) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या 7532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि 199.54 करोड़ रुपए में)

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 61.34 करोड़ निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

: 123.74 करोड़

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

(राशि रुपए में )

9. यह अनुमोदन वैध रहेगा और मैसर्स मेगरपट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेंट एंड कंस्ट्रक्शन कंपनी लि, ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए अकेले ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ

होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

( 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 । : टावर-1 , 15 दिसम्बर , 2003 टावर-11 अगस्त, 2004 टावर- III दिसम्बर , 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 विकास अवसंरचना पर न्यूनतम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

10. यदि मैसर्स मेगरपट्ट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेंट एंड कंस्ट्रक्शन कंपनी लि, (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 ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शर्तों के साथ - साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम, 2002 में शामिल उन शर्तों का अनुपालन उस अवधिके 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 मेगरप‌ट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेंट एंड कंस्ट्रक्शन कंपनी लि, 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 तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित किसी 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 अथवा भारतीय रिज़र्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल हैं , को प्रवृत नीति तथा प्रक्रियाओं के अनुसार अलग से लिया जाएगा ।

New Delhi , the 21st August , 2006 (INCOME- TAX)

7. मैसर्स मेगरपट्टा टाऊनशिप डेवलपमेंट एंड कंस्ट्रक्शन कंपनी लि, उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधिमें आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80झक की उपधारा (4) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

S.O. 3465. 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 of the Government of India in the Ministry of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7533

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

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 ;

And whereas M/ s . Magarpatta Township Develop- ment and Construction Company Limited , Megaspace , 13 Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Pune -411001 , is developing an Industrial Park at Cybercity Magarpatta , 143, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411028, Maharashtra;

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15 /34/2003 - IP & ID dated 1-9-2004 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, being developed and being maintained and operated byM/ s . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited , Pune , as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause ( iii).

[Notification No. 216/2006/F . No. 178113/2006 - ITA- I ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

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 . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited, Pune .

1. ( i) Name ofthe Industrial

Undertaking

: M/ s . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited, Pune (ii) Proposed Location : Cybercity Magarpatta , 143, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411028, Maharashtra

(iii) Total Area of Indu- : 52,666.82 Square Meters.

strial Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC Code

NICCode

Section

S.No.

Division

Group 8

892

100%

(v) Percentage ofallocable area earmarked for industrial use

: Nil

(vi ) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

: 12 Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial units

199.54 crores (viii) Total investments proposed: (Amount in Rupees)

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

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

: Tower- I 15th

December , 2003 (xi) Proposed date of com- mencement of the Industrial Park.

August, 2004

Tower- II Tower- III

December, 2004

Description

Class

892/2

Software Supply Services 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) 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 fiftyper cent ofthe 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 hy the Foreign Investment Promotion Board or Reserve Bank of India or any authority specified under any law for the 7534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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.

7. M/ s . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited, 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 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 801A of the Income - Tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited , 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 . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited, 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 Govemment may withdraw the above approval in case M/ s . Magarpatta Township Development and Construction Company Limited, 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.

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006 (आयकर)

का. आ. 3466 , 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 अधि-सूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मीनाक्षी हाउस , 8-2-418 , रोड सं. 7 , बंजारा हिल्स , हैदराबाद -500034 ' ई-पार्क' नाम से सर्वे सं. 5 , 15 , 17 , कोंडापुर ग्राम , सिरीलिंगमपल्ली, रंगारेड्डी जिला , आन्ध्र प्रदेश में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 17-2-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 13/2005 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

इसलिए, अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झक 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 मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 212/2006/फा.सं. 178/ 72/2006- आ.क.नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम :मैसर्स मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्रावेट लिमिटेड

: 'ई-पार्क'

(ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

सर्वे सं. 5 , 15 , 17, कोंडापुर ग्राम , सिरीलिंगमपल्ली, रंगारेड्डी जिला, आन्ध्र प्रदेश

:48,613.58 वर्ग मीटर (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

7535

भारत का राजयल : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

अनुभाग

समूह क्रम सं

क

892 8

893 8

ग

894 घ

895

: 90.07%

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

: 9.93%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 30 यूनिट

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि : 75 करोड़ रुपए में)

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 32करोड़ निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

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

: सितम्बर, 2005 (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 सीवरेज , 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 एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

विवरण

श्रेणी

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसीसेवाएं

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं 4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखितकोई 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 भिन्नकम्पनी से है ।

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों, जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , 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 मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद उस अवधिके दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80झक 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 80झक की उप-धारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , हैदराबाद , 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 7536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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 मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद (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 ।

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 मीनाक्षी इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, हैदराबाद 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 ।

New Delhi , the 21st August, 2006 (INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 3466.-Whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub- section (4) ofSection 80-1A ofthe 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 of March, 2002 and

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

And whereas M/ s . Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited, Meenakshi House , 8-2-418 , Road No. 7, Banjara Hills , Hyderabad-500034, is developing an Industrial Park namely, ' E-Park' at Survey No. 5, 15 , 17 , Kondapur Village , Serilingampally, Rangareddy District , Andhra Pradesh;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 13/2005-1P & ID dated 17-2-2005 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 80-1A of the said Act , the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking being , developed and being maintained and operated by M/ s . Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited , Hyderabad , as an industrial park for the purposes ofthe said clause ( iii ) .

[Notification No. 212 /2006/F . No. 178/72/2006- ITA- I ] DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

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 . Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited, Hyderabad.

: M/ s . Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited

1. ( i) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

(ii) Proposed location : ' E- Park' at Survey No. 5, 15, 17 , Kondapur Village , Serilingampally, Rangareddy District, Andhra Pradesh

48,613.58 Square Meters.

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial Activity with NIC Code

NIC Code

Section

Division

S. No.

Group 8

892 A

893 8

894 C

895

Description

Class

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.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र:

: 90.07% (v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

9.93%

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

7537

सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

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.

: 30 Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial units

7. M/s . Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited shall continue to operate the Industrial Park during the period inwhich the benefits under clause (iii ) ofsub-section (4) of section 801A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

75 crores

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

32 crores

(ix) Investment on built up space : for Industrial use .

(Amount in Rupees).

x) Investment on Infrastructure:

8. In case the commencement ofthe 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 801A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 .

61.80 crores

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

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

: September, 2005

(xi) Proposed date of com- mencement 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 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 Ist 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 .

2538 G1/06-5

(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 inthe name of another undertaking.

10. In case M/ s . Meenakshi Infrustrctures Private Limited, Hyderabad, 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 in case M/s . Meenakshi Infrastructures Private Limited , Hyderabad , 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 ofthe applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the industrial park .

7538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006

(आयकर )

का.आ. 3467.- 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 ) 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 रोमा बिल्डर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय 514 , डालामल टावर्स , 211 नरीमन प्वाईंट , मुम्बई-400021 में है, ' रोमा बिल्डर्स इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क ' नाम से सर्वे सं. 147/5/1 (पी ) , 147/2 , 3 , 4 , 5/27 , 148 , 150 , 154/2 , 281 /2 ए , 2बी, 2/सी, 2 /डी, थाणे महाराष्ट्र-400607 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 15-02-2006 के पत्र सं. 15/63/04- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] इसलिए, अब , 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 रोमा बिल्डर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 214/2006/फा.सं. 178/37/2005- आ.क.नि. -1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स रोमा बिल्डर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : रोमा बिल्डर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: 'रोमा बिल्डर्स इंडस्ट्रियल पार्क', सर्व सं. 147/5/1(पी) , 147/2, 3 , 4, 5/27, 148 , 150,154/2,281 /2ए, 2बी, 2/सी, 2/डी, थाणे , महाराष्ट्र-400 607

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलापं का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

क्रम

प्रभाग

समूह अनुभाग

सं.

2और 3

क

ख

ग

घ

892

ङ

893

च

894

छ

895

: 9685.99 वर्ग मीटर (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

: 91.30%

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

: 8.70%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 15 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

बिजली , गैस और पानी संचार सेवाएं

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में) 16,49,93,642.92

: 9,84,11,033.11 (ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में)

: 15,25,89,243.17 (x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशि रुपए में) [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7539 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11, 1928

: 13 दिसम्बर, 2002

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

10. यदि मैसर्स मैसर्स रोमा बिल्डर्स 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 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 ।

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 दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शतों के साथ-साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम , 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 मैसर्स रोमा बिल्डर्स 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 किंया 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 ।

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 ।

New Delhi , the 21st August, 2006 (INCOME TAX)

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

S.O. 3467.-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 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 ofMarch , 2002 and vide number S.Q. 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;

7. मैसर्स रोमा बिल्डर्स 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 उप - धारा ( 4 ) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिए जाने हैं ।

And whereas M/ s . Roma Builders Private Limited, having registered office at 514, Dalamal Towers , 211 Nariman Point, Mumbai -400031 , is developing an Industrial Park namely, ' Roma Builders Industrial Park ' at Survey No. 147/ 5/1 (p), 147/2 , 3 , 4, 5/27 , 148, 150,154/2,281 /2A, 2B , 2/ C, 2/D, Thane, Maharashtra-400 607;

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 औद्योगिक प्मार्क योजना , 2002 के अंतर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce.and Industry letter No. 15/63/04- IP & IDdated 15-2-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स रोमा बिल्डर्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , मुम्बई 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 ।

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of sub-section (4 ) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , developed and being maintained and operated by M/s. Roma Builders Private Limited, Mumbai , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii ) .

[Notification No. 214/2006 /F , No. 178/37/2005 - ITA- 1 ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy .

( ii ) यह उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क की अवस्थिति हेतु है जिसके लिए अनुमोदन किसी अन्य उपक्रम के नाम में पहले ही प्रदान किया गया है । 7540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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 . Roma Builders Private Limited, Mumbai.

RomaBuilders Private Limited

1. (1) Name of the Industrial : Undertaking

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (ii) Proposed location : Roma Builders Industrial Park, SurveyNo. 147/5/1 (P), 147/2,3,4,5/27, 148, 150 , 154/2,281 /2A, 2B , 2/C, 2/D ,

Thane ,Maharashtra -400 607

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code

NIC Code

S.No.

Section Division

Group 2&3

892 E

893 F

894 G

895

9685.99 Square Meters (iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

91.30% (v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use

8.70% (vi) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for commercial use

15 units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

16,49,93,642.92 (viii) Total investments proposed. (Amount in Rupees) :

: 9,84,11,033.11 (ix) Investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

15,25,89,243.17 (x) Investment on infrastructure : Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees )

: 13thDecember, 2002 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement ofthe 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 Description

Class

Manufacturing .

Electricity, Gas& 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 .

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 severage, common effluent treatment facility , telecom 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) oftheTable givenin 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 .

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 .

7. M/s . Roma Builders 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 80-1A ofthe Income - tax Act, 1961 are to be availed.

7541

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ] :

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 Scherne , 2002, for availing benefits under Sub- section 4 ( iii ) of Section 80 - IA of the Income- taxAct, 1961.

9. The approval will be invalid and M/s . Roma Builders 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 some material information has not been provided init.

(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 . Roma Builders Private Limited, Mumbai , 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 Intrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance , Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion , Udyog hawan , New Delhi- 11 along with a copy ofthe agreement executed between the transferor and transferee undertaking For the aforsaid 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 . Roma Builders Private Limited , Mumbai, 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 ofthe applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval of the Industrial Park.

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ. 3468.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का43 ) (यहां आगे उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 80 झ क कीउप - धारा (4 ) के खंड ( iii ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च, 2002को 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 जरिए भारत सरकार वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय ( औद्योगिक नीति और संवर्धन विभाग ) की अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक फर्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है;

और , जबकि, मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड ' इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन , तिलक मार्ग, जयपुर-302005 में है , आई आई डी केन्द्र, कलाडवास , जिला उदयपुर , राजस्थान-313003 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है;

और, जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय केदिनांक 27-9-2002 के पत्र सं. 15/85/05- 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा विकसितु तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है । [अधिसूचना सं. 215/2006/फा. सं. 178/05/2006- आ.क.नि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , 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 लिमिटेड (ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: आई आई डी केन्द्र, कलाडवास , जिला

उदयपुर, राजस्थान-313 003

: 171.09 एकड़ (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क क्त क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

समूह अनुभाग

क

2 एंड 3

का स्वरूप

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप 7542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ( v ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 97.62% प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए : 2.38% निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 243 यूनिटें न्यूनतम संख्या

7. मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर 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 लिएजाने हैं ।

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि :664.37 लाख रुपए में)

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

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 औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा ।

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अंवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदार होगा , यदि

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में) : 598.96 लाख

(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 । (xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 01-05-2001

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 राजस्थान स्टैंट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , 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 संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे । 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 दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त हैं ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट तालिका के कॉलम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई एकल इकाई किसी औद्योगिक पार्क के लिए नियत औद्योगिक क्षेत्र का 50 % से अधिकं 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 ।

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 ।

New Delhi , the 21st August , 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 3468.-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 notification 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 3 Ist day of March , 2002 and vide number S.O. 354( E) dated the Ist day ofApril, 2002 , for the 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 & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhawan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur- 302005 is developing an Industrial Park, at IID Centre , Kaladwas, District Udaipur, Rajasthan -313003;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/85/05 - IP & ID dated 27-9-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification ;

7543

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( iii ) of sub - section (4) of Section 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking, being 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) .

[Notification No. 215 /2006/F. No. 178/05/2006- ITA - I ]

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

Theterms 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

: Rajasthan State Industrial Industrial

Development&

Undertaking

Investment Corporation

Limited.

(ii) Proposed location : IID Centre , Kaladwas ,

District: Udaipur, Rajasthan - 3 13 003

171.09 acres.

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code

NICCode

Division

Section

S.No.

Group A

2&3

97.62%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

2.38% (vi) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for commercial use

243 Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

Description

Class

Manufacturing

: 01-05-2001 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement ofthe Industrial Park

664.37 lakhs

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

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

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

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 .

7544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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 .

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 .

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 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 I (xi ) ofthis notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme , 2002, for availing benefits undersub-section 4 ( iii ) ofSection 80-1A 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

(i) the application on the basis of which 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 Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit of the Secretariat for Endustrial 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.

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

नई दिल्ली , 22 अगस्त, 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 3469.- 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 प्रदंत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार ने 1 अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2002को समाप्त होने वाली अवधि के लिये संख्या का. आ. 193 (अ ) दिनांक 30 मार्च , 1999 के ज़रिए तथा ,। अप्रैल , 1997 से शुरू होकर तथा 31 मार्च , 2006 को समाप्त अवधि के लिए संख्या का.आ. 354 ( अ ) , 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 , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र जादरी फालना (आई आई डी केन्द्र ) , पाली , राजस्थान-306 401 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रहा है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 24-10-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/ 101/05 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

इसलिए अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 80 झ कं 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इनवेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 217/2006/फा: सं. 178 / 22/2006- आ.क.नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7545

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंब एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है । ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

1. : राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. जयपुर (ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान : औधोगिक क्षेत्र जादरी

फालना ( आई आई डी केन्द्र) , पाली , राजस्थान- 306401

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल : 127.45 एकड़ (iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप:

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप

का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

अनुभाग

समूह क

2 और 3

: 90.09%

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

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए : 9.91% निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

: 30यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

: 4,33,00,000/- (viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

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

: 3,69,19,000/- (x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर

निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

: 31-3-2006 (xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि

2538G1/06-6

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

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 ।

4. दिनांक 1 अप्रैल , 2002 की का.आ. 354 ( अ ) के पैराग्राफ 6के 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 अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के, अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , 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 इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर 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 लिएजाने 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 7546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप - धारा 4 ( iii ) 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 इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन 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 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 जिसके लिए इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त किए जाने हैं । केन्द्र सरकार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस ले सकती है मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

New Delhi , the 22nd August , 2006

(INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 3469. 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

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 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 ofApril, 2002, for the period beginning on the 1st day ofApril, 1997 and ending on the 31st day 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 Zadri Falna ( IID Centre) , Pali , Rajasthan - 306401 ;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 101 /05-1P & ID dated 24-10-2005 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, being 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) .

[NotificationNo. 217/2006/F. No. 178/22/2006 - ITA- 1 ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

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

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development& Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

(ii) Proposed location : Industrial Area Zadri Falna (IID Centre) , Pali , Rajasthan-306401 .

127.45 acres .

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

7547

सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC Code

NICCode

S.No.

Section

Division

Group A

2& 3

90.09% (v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use :

: 9.91% (vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

: 30Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial units

: Rs.4,33,00,000/- (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

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

: Rs. 3,69,19,000/- (x) Investment on Infrastructure Development including investment on built up space for industrial use (Amount in Rupees)

: 31-3-2006 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement ofthe 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 ) 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 .

Description

Class

Manufacturing activities

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 I ( 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.

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park isdelayed 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 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 of which the approval is accorded by the Central Government contains wrong information/misinformation or some material information has not been provided init.

(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 with a copy of the agreement executedbetween the transferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

7548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 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 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 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.

नई दिल्ली , 22 अगस्त, 2006

(आयकर )

का.आ. 3470. - 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 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 ;

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर -302 005 में है , बलोतरा तृतीय फेज

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] विस्तार, जिला बाड़मेर , राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 27-09-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/88/2005- आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क अनुमोदित किया है;

इसलिए अब 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 218/2006/फा. सं. 178/26/2006- आ.क.नि. - 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क को गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट

: राजस्थान स्टेट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट

कारपोरेशन लि.

( ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: बलोतरा तृतीय फेज विस्तार , जिला बाड़मेर , राजस्थान ( iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल : 49.61 एकड़ ( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

क्रम सं.

समूह अनुभाग

2 एंड 3

क

: 100%

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

: शून्य

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत

का स्वरूप

विवरण

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्याकलाप

: 83 यूनिटें

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की न्यूनतम संख्या

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि: 157.88 लाख रुपए में ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

: शून्य

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

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर 143.88 लाख निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक

* उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान

पर निवेश भी शामिल है

(राशिरुपए में )

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 01-04-2004 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 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 दृष्टिसे निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त 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 अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , 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 इन्वेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का

7549

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 80 झ क की उप- धारा ( 4) के खंड ( iii ) के अन्तर्गत लाभ लिएजाने 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 अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । 9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वंय 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 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 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 मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कारपोरेशन लि. , जयपुर औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है।

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 22nd August, 2006

(INCOME-TAX)

S. O. 3470.- 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 ofthe 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 Ist 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, for the period beginning on the Ist day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day 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 and Industrial Park, at Balotra III Phase Extn. , District Barmer, Rajasthan;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/ 88/05 - IP & ID dated 27-09-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

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

[Notification No. 218/2006/F . No. 178/26/2006- ITA - I ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

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 . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur.

: Rajasthan State Industrial

Development & Investment 1. (1) Name of the Industrial Undertaking

Corporation Limited (ii) Proposed location : Balotra III Phase Extn . , District Barmer , Rajasthan .

49.61 acres

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

S. No.

Section

Division

Group 2&3

100% (v) Percentage of allocable area : earmarked for industrial use

Nil

(vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

83 Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

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

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

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

01-04-2004

(xi) Proposed date of commencement ofthe Industrial Park

Description

Class

Manufacturing .

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 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.

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 .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7551

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

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.

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) ofsub- section (4) of section 801A ofthe 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) ofthis notification , fresh approval will be required under the Industrial Park Scheme, 2002, for availingbenefits under Sub-section 4 ( iii) of Section 801 A 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 repercussion 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 init.

(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 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 .

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.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 , orfailure on the part of the applicant to disclose any material fact, will invalidate the approval ofthe Industrial Park.

नई दिल्ली , 22 अगस्त, 2006 (आयकर)

का.आ. 3471.-जबकि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का43) (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 अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क की योजना निर्मित और अधिसूचित की है ;

और जबकि मैसर्स के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, कंस्ट्रक्शन हाउस - ए, 24वां, रोड, खार ( प. ) , मुम्बई-400 052, मिंडस्पेस सैबराबाद , सर्वे सं. 64 ( भाग ) , ए पी आई आई सी. सॉफ्टवेयर लेआउंट , वी. एस. एन. एल. बिल्डिग , हाइटेक सिटी , माधापुर , हैदराबाद, आन्ध्र प्रदेश -500081 में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है ;

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय केदिनांक 24-11-2004 के पत्र सं. 15/38/2004- 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 के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, मुम्बई , द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 220/2006/फा. सं. 178/ 14/2006- आ.क.नि. -1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 7552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्ते जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , मुम्बई , द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

1. ( ⅰ ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : मैसर्स के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, (ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: मिंडस्पेस सैबराबाद , सर्वे सं. 64( भाग ) , ए पी आई आई सी सॉफ्टवेयर लेआउट , वी एस एन एल बिल्डिंग से आगे , हाईटेक सिटी, माधापुर, हैदराबाद , आन्ध्र प्रदेश -500081 (iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का क्षेत्रफल : 1,32,851.81 वर्ग मीटर 1,18,731 वर्ग मीटर (आबंटनीय क्षेत्र) ( iv ) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] (v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 90% प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत : 10%

: 30 यूनिट

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की प्रस्तावित संख्या

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि : 314 करोड़ रुपए में)

(ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में ) : 275.49 करोड़ (x ) अवसंरचानात्मक विकास पर 293.37 करोड़ निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में)

(xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि : 31-1-2006

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

समूह अनुभाग

क्रम सं

2और 3

क

ग

892

घ

893 ङ

894

895

छ

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 ।

श्रेणी

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

बिजली , गैस और पानी

संचार सेवाएं

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग , साफ्टवेयर विकास तथा कम्प्यूटर कंसलटेंसी सेवाएं

तकनीकी परीक्षण एवं विश्लेषण सेवाएं कार्यकलाप हेतु सामान्य उपयोग के लिए हैं जो वाणिज्यिक दृष्टि से निर्धारणीय एवं प्रयुक्त 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 । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. आवश्यक अनुमोदनों जिनमें विदेशी निवेश संवर्धन बोर्ड अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा उस समय प्रवृत्त किसी कानून के अन्तर्गत विनिर्दिष्ट किसी प्राधिकरण के द्वारा विदेशी प्रत्यक्ष निवेश अथवा अनिवासी भारतीय निवेश के लिए अनुमोदन शामिल है , 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 के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , 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 औद्योगिक पार्क योजना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । 9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) पाइवेट लिमिटेड , ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वंय 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 के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, ( 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 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 मैसर्स के. रहेजा आई टी पार्क ( हैदराबाद ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा इस अधिसूचना की किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

2538 GI/06-7

7553

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 22nd August, 2006 (INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 3471. 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 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;

And whereas M/ s . K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Private Limited, Construction House-A, 24th Road , Khar (W), Mumbai-400-052 , is developing an Industrial Park at Mindspace Cyberabad, Survey No. 64 (Part) , APIIC Software Layout , Next to VSNL Building , Hitech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad , Andhra Pradesh-500 081;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/38 /04 - IP & ID dated 24-11-2004 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 80-1A of the said Act, the Central Government hereby notifies the undertaking , being developed and maintained and operated by M/ s . K. Raheja IT Park ( Hyderabad) Private Limited, Mumbai , as an Industrial Park for the purposes of the said clause (iii).

[Notification No. 220/2006 /F . No. 178 / 14 /2006 - ITA - 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

Theterms and conditions on which the approval of the Government of India has been accorded for setting up ofan Industrial Park by M/s . K. Raheja IT Park ( Hyderabad) Private Limited , Mumbai .

: K. Raheja IT Park 1. (i) Name of the

(Hyderabad) Private Limited :

Industrial Development & Investment

(ii) Proposed location : Mindspace Cyberabad , Survey No. 64 (Part), APIIC Software Layout, Next to VSNL Bldg . , Hitech City , Madhapur , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500 081 (iii) Area of Industrial 1,32,851.81 Sq . Meters 1,18,731 Sq . Meters (allocable area) Park 7554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

(iv) Proposed activities

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC- cude

NIC Code

S.No.

Section Division

Group 3

892

893 F

894 G

895 8

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

10% (vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked or commercial use :

30units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

: 314 crores (viii) Total investments proposed (Amount in Rupees)

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

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

: 31-1-2006 (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 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 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 .

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 Description

Class

Manufacturing

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 .

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 specifted 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 . K. Raheja IT Park ( Hyderabad) Private Limited, 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 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 underSub- section 4 ( iii ) of Section 801 A of the Income - tax Act, 1961 .

9. The approval will be invalid and M/ s . K. Raheja IT Park ( Hyderabad ) Private Limited , 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 init.

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

7555 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

और जबकि मैसर्स इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड , प्लाट ए-3 , ब्लाक जी पी , सेक्टर V , साल्ट लेक इलेक्ट्रानिक्स काम्पलेक्स, कोलकाता-700091 , नार्थ 24 परगना , वेस्ट बंगाल में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है;

10. In case M/s . K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Private Limited, 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 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 .

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित नियम और शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 3-6-2002 के पत्र सं. 15 (6 ) /2002- आई पी एंड आई डीके अन्तर्गत उक्त औद्योगिक पार्क को अनुमोदित किया है ;

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 K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) Private Limited, fails to comply with any ofthe conditions.

इसलिए अब 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 इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड , कोलकाता , द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 213/2006/फा. सं. 178/81/2005- आ.क.नि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 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.

अनुबंध

नई दिल्ली, 21 अगस्त, 2006 (आयकर)

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड कोलकाता , द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

: मैसर्स इनफिनिटी

1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम

इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड,

(ii ) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: नार्थ 24 परगना , वेस्ट बंगाल

: 34500 वर्ग मीटर

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क क्षेत्रफल

( iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

का.आ. 3472.- 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 ) , 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 ;

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

प्रभाग

श्रेणी

क्रम

समूह

अनुभाग

सं

क

892

डाटा प्रोसेसिंग साफ्टवेयर डेवलपमेंट एंड कम्प्यूटर कन्सेल्टेंसी सेवाएं

ख

752.

टेलिफोन कम्युनिकेशन सेवाएं

: 92%

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 32यूनिट

प्रस्तावित संख्या

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

80.00 करोड़ : 8%

(viii) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपए में)

( vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए निर्धारित भूमि का प्रतिशत 7556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART I SEC . 3 ( ii)] (ix) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए : 45.30 करोड़

निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशि रुपए में )

9. यह अनुमोदन अवैध रहेगा और मैसर्स इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड, कोलकाता , ऐसी किसी प्रतिक्रिया की अवैधता के लिए स्वयं ही जिम्मेदारं होगा , यदि

(x ) अवसंरचानात्मक विकास पर 75.50 करोड़

(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 । 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 : 31-12-2003

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 इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड, कोलकाता, (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 ।

3. अवसंरचना 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 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 यदिमैसर्स इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड , कोलकाता , 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 देगा ।

New Delhi , the 21st August, 2006 (INCOME- TAX)

7. मैसर्स इनफिनिटी इंफोटेक पार्क लिमिटेड , कोलकाता , 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 ।

S.O. 3472.--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 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 Ist day of April , 2002 , for the period beginning on the 1st day of April , 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March , 2006;

And whereas M/ s . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited, Plot A3 , Block GP, Sector V , Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata- 700 091 , is developing an Industrial Park at North 24 Parganas , West Bengal ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

Andwhereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15(6)/2002- IP & ID dated 3-6-2002 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

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 . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited, Kolkata:

Infinity Infotech Parks Limited.

1. (i) Name ofthe Industrial Undertaking

(ii) Proposed location : North 24 Parganas , West Bengal

34500 square meters 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 , being developed and being maintained and operated by M/s . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited , Kolkata , as an industrial park for the purposes of the said clause (iii).

(iii) Area of Industrial : Park

[Notification No. 213/2006/F. No. 178/81 /2005 - ITA- I ]

(iv) Proposed activities

DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Description

Class

Section Division

S. No.

Group

892

Data processing, software development & computer consultancy services ..

752

Telephone,. communication services .

92%

(v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

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

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

32Units

(vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

80.0 crore

3. Infrastructure development shall include , roads (including approach roads ), water supply and severage , commoneffluent 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 : (Amount in Rupees)

45.30crore

(ix) Investment on built up space : for industrial use

(Amount in Rupees)

: 75.50 crore

4. No single unit referred to in column (2) of the table given in sub- paragraph ( b ) ofparagraph 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 .

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

31-12-2003

(xi) Proposed date of commencement of the 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 .

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 7558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 7. M/s . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited, Kolkata, 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 80-1 A of the Income- taxAct, 1961 .

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 . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited, Kolkata, shall be solely responsible for any repercussions of such invalidity , if-

और जबकि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. जिसका पंजीकृत कार्यालय उद्योग भवन, तिलक मार्ग , जयपुर -302005 में है, मेवाड़ इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया ( विस्तार ) , उदयपुर, राजस्थान में एक औद्योगिक पार्क का विकास कर रही है ;

(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 in it.

और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार ने इस अधिसूचना के अनुबंध में उल्लिखित शर्तों के अधीन वाणिज्य तथा उद्योग मंत्रालय के दिनांक 19-9-2005 के पत्र सं. 15/86/05 - आई पी एंड आई डी के अन्तर्गत उक्तऔद्योगिक 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 राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, जयपुर द्वारा विकसित तथा अनुरक्षित एवं प्रचालित किए जा रहे उक्त उपक्रम को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 219/2006/फा. सं. 178/6/2006-आ.क.नि. - 1 ]

दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव 10. In case M/ s . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited , Kolkata , 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 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 .

अनुबंध

नियम एवं शर्तें जिन पर भारत सरकार ने मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. जयपुर द्वारा औद्योगिक पार्क गठित किए जाने हेतु अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है : 1. ( i ) औद्योगिक उपक्रम का नाम : राजस्थान स्टेट 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 . Infinity Infotech Parks Limited , Kolkata, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट

कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 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.

(ii) प्रस्तावित स्थान

: मेवाड़ इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया (विस्तार ) उदयपुर, राजस्थान-313003 नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्त, 2006 (आयकर)

: 58.00 एकड़

(iii ) औद्योगिक पार्क का कुल क्षेत्रफल

(iv) प्रस्तावित कार्यकलाप :

का.आ. 3473.-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

एन आई सी संहिता के साथ औद्योगिक कार्यकलाप का स्वरूप

विवरण

एन आई सी संहिता

श्रेणी

प्रभाग

क्रम

समूह

अनुभाग

सं

विनिर्माण कार्यकलाप

क

2.एंड 3 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजमल (v) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए प्रस्तावित आबंटनीय क्षेत्र का प्रतिशत : 8861%

(vi ) वाणिज्यिक उपयोग के लिए 5.74% निर्धारित भूमि का प्रकिरात

(vii ) औद्योगिक यूनिटों की : 85 यूनिट न्यूनतम संख्या

(viii ) प्रस्तावित कुल निवेश ( राशि रुपएमें) : 515.00 लाख (ix ) औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश (राशिरुपए में) शून्य

(x) अवसंरचनात्मक विकास पर निवेश जिसमें औद्योगिक उपयोग के लिए निर्मित स्थान पर निवेश भी शामिल है (राशिरुपए में) : 515.00 लाख (xi ) औद्योगिक पार्क के आरंभ होने की प्रस्तावित तिथि .: जनवरी , 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 न्यूनत्तम खर्च कुल परियोजना लागत के 60% से कम नहीं होगा ।

3. अवसंरचना विकास में सड़क ( सम्पर्क सड़क सहित ) , जलापूर्ति तथा सर्सीवरेज़ , 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. 354 ( अ ) के पैराम्राफ 6 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( ख ) में निर्दिष्ट सालिका के कालम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित कोई भी एकल इकाई किसी औद्योमिक 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 अथवा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अथवा यथासमय 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 ।

7559

सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

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

7. मैसर्स राजस्वानः स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कास्शिल लि. , उस अवधि के दौरान औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन जारी रखेगा जिस अवधि में आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 श 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 बिलम्ब होता है तो आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 80 झक की उपधारा 4 ( iii ) के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए औद्योगिक पार्क योकना , 2002 के अन्तर्गत नया अनुमोदन प्राप्त करना अपेक्षित होगा । 9. यह अनुमोदन अबैध रहेगा और मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशन लि. , ऐसी किसी अवैधता की प्रतिक्रिया के लिए स्वयं 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 हो ।

10. यदि मैसर्स राजस्थान स्टेट इंडस्ट्रियल डेवलपमेंट एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशल लि. , ( अर्थात्अन्तरणकर्ता उपक्रम ) औद्योगिक पार्क का प्रचालन और अनुरक्षण किसी दूसरे उपक्रम (अर्थात् अंतरिती उपक्रम ) को हस्तांतरित करेगा तो अंतरणकर्ता और अंतरिती उपर्युक्त हस्तांतरण के लिए अंतरणकर्त्ता 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 को संयुक्त रूप से सूचित करेंगे ।

11. इस अधिसूचना में उल्लिखित शत्तों के साथ-साथ औद्योगिक पार्कस्कीम , 2002 में शामिल शतों 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 इन्वेस्टमेंट कार्पोरेशल लि. , औद्योगिक पार्क स्कीम , 2002 में विहित शर्तों अथवा किसी भी शर्त के अनुपालन में असफल रहता है ।

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 22nd August , 2006

(INCOME- TAX)

S.O. 3473.- 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 notification 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 vide number S.O. 354(E) dated the 1st day ofApril , 2002, for the 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 & Investment Corporation Limited, having registered office at Udyog Bhavan , Tilak Marg , Jaipur-302005 , is developing an Industrial Park at Mewar Industrial Area (Extn . ) , Udaipur , Rajasthan- 313003 ;

And whereas the Central Government has approved the said Industrial Park vide Ministry of Commerce and Industry letter No. 15/86/04- IP & ID dated 19-9-2005 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the annexure to this notification;

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

[Notification No. 219 /2006/ F.No . 178 /6/2006 - ITA - I ]

DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

The terms and condition 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

: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, (ii) Proposed location : Mewar Industrial Area ( Extn . ) Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313003

: 58.00 acres

(iii) Total area of Industrial park

(iv) Proposed activities

Nature of Industrial activity with NIC code

NIC Code

Section

Division

S. No.

Group 2&3

: 88.61% (v) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for industrial use

: 5.74% (vi) Percentage of allocable area earmarked for commercial use

85 Units (vii) Minimum number of industrial : units

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

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

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

: January, 2006 (xi) Proposed date of Commencement of the Industrial Park

Description

Class

Manufacturing .

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 7561 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

fiftyper cent ofthe 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 .

the operation and maintenance of the Industrial Park (i.e. , transferor undertaking) to another undertaking ( i.e. , the transfree undertaking) , the transferor and transferee shall jointly intimate to the Entrepreneurial Assistance Unit ofthe 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 trensferor and transferee undertaking for the aforesaid transfer .

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.

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 . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, fails to comply with any of the conditions .

7. M/s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, 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 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 are to be availed .

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

8. In case the commencement of the Industrial Park isdelayed 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 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961.

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 28 अगस्त, 2006

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

का.आ. 3474. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप - खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड (ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को उक्त सारणी के कालम ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों के स्थान पर इसके कालम ( 1 ) मेंविनिर्दिष्ट राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंकों के निदेशक के रूप में तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगला आदेश होने तक नामित करती है : -

10. In case M/ s . Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, transfers

सारणी

विद्यमान निदेशकों के नाम

प्रस्तावित व्यक्ति का नाम

बैंक का नाम

श्री के. आर. दास

सिंडिकेट बैंक

श्री सालिम गंगाधरन ,

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक,

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ,

विदेशी विनिमय विभाग ,

मुम्बई ।

श्रीमती सुमा वर्मा

श्रीविजय चुघ,

युनाइटेड बैंक आफ इंडिया

महाप्रबंधक,

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक ,

कोलकाता ।

[फा. सं. 9 / 18/2000 - बीओ -1 ]

जी. बी. सिंह, उप सचिव 2538 G1/06-8 7562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (Department of Economic Affairs)

(BANKING DIVISION)

New Delhi , the 28th August, 2006

S.O. 3474. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( c) of sub - section (3 ) of section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 , read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 the Central Government , hereby nominates the persons specified in column (2) of the table below as Directorsof the Nationalised Banks specified in column ( 1 ) thereof in place of the persons specified in column (3) ofthe said Table , with immediate effect and until further orders :-

TABLE

Name of the Bank

Name of the existing Director

Name ofperson

proposed

Syndicate Bank

Shri K.R. Das .

Shri Salim Gangadharan , Chief General Manager , RBI , Foreign Exchange Dept. , Mumbai .

United Bank of India

Smt . Suma Varma .

Shri Vijay Chugh , General Manager , Reserve Bank of India , Kolkata.

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

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi , the 24th , August , 2006

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2006

S.O. 3475.-In pursuance of sub - section ( 1 ) and (3) of section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) , the Central Government hereby appoints Professor Sneh Bhargava in place ofDr. S.B. Siwach, elected bytheMedical Council of India from amongst its members to be a member of the Post- Graduate Medical Education Committee up to 21-11-2006 and makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Health and Family Welfare published vide S.O. 3181 dated 15-12-2001 , namely :-

का.आ. 3475.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 20 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) तथा ( 3 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार डा. एस. बी. सीवाच के स्थान पर भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद द्वारा उसके सदस्यों में से निर्वाचित प्रोफेसर स्नेह भार्गव को 21-11-2006 तक स्नातकोत्तर चिकित्सा शिक्षा समितिके सदस्यके रूप में नियुक्त करती है और दिनांक 15-12-2001 के का. आ. 3181 के तहत भारत सरकार , स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय की प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

उक्त अधिसूचना में " केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा नामित " शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत क्रम संख्या 6 की प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , नामतः :-

In the said notification , after the entry against serial number 6 under the heading " Nominated by the Central Government " the following entries shall be substituted, namely :---

भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद द्वारा निर्वाचित

ELECTED BY THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA 1. प्रोफेसर स्नेह भार्गव

1. Professor Sneh Bhargava

ए-103 , न्यूफ्रेंड्स कालोनी , नईदिल्ली-110065

A- 103 , New Friends Colony, NewDelhi- 110065

[सं. वी-11013/ 5/ 2001-एमई ( नीति -1 ) ]

[No. V- 11013/5/2001 -ME (Policy -1 ) ]

K. V. S. RAO , Under Secy .

के. वी. एस. राव , अवर सचिव [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

(स्वास्थ्यविभाग)

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3476. भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) के अनुसरण में तथा महाराष्ट्र सरकार के परामर्श से डॉ. पाण्डुरंग महादेवराव जाधव को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में मनोनीत किया गया है ।

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) ( क) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 , में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क) के अधीन मनोनीत ' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत क्रम संख्या 5 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियांप्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी; अर्थात्:-

महाराष्ट्र सरकार " " 5. डा. पाण्डुरंग महादेवराव जाधव , 153 , नन्दनवन कालोनी , छावनी, औरंगाबाद-431002.

[सं. वी.- 11013/1/2005 - एमई ( नीति -1 ) ] के. वी. एस. राव , अवर सचिव (Department of Health) New Delhi , the 21st August , 2006

S.O. 3476.-Whereas the Central Government , in pursuance of clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) (a) of Section 3 ofthe Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) and in consultation with the Government of Maharashtra have nominated Dr. Pandurang Mahadevrao Jhadav to be a member of the Medical Council of India for a period of five years with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub- section ( 1 ) ( a) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number S.O. 138, dated the 9th January, 1960, namely:-

Inthe said notification, under the heading, ' Nominated under clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 5 and the entries thereto , the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely :-

Maharashtra" "5. Dr. Pandurang Mahadevrao Jhadav, Government 153, Nandanvan Colony , Chawani , Aurangabad -431002 . of

[No. V- 11013 / 1 /2005 -ME (Policy- 1)] K. V. S. RAO, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 21 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3477.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. सुरेश रणछोड़ भाई पटानी , सदस्य, चिकित्सा संकाय , एम.एस. यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ बड़ोदा, बदोदरा को एम. एस. यूनिवर्सिटी

7563 ऑफ बड़ोदा की सीनेट इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में मनोनीत किया गया है ।

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) ( ख) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 , में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती. है, अर्थात्: -

उक्त अधिसूचना में ' धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क) के अधीन मनोनीत ' शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत क्रम संख्या 24 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी; अर्थात्:-

" 24. डॉ. सुरेश रणछोड़भाई पटानी , एम.एस. यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ बड़ोदा" चित्रकूट, 59 ,

नन्दनवन गैस आफिस के नजदीक, बदोदरा -390007.

[सं. वी.- 11013/2/ 2004- एमई ( नीति-1 ) ] के. वी. एस. राव , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st August , 2006

S.O. 3477. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub - section ( 1 ) (b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Dr. Suresh Ranchodbhai Patani , Member of the faculty of Medicine , M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodra has been elected by the senate of the M.S. University ofBaroda to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number S.O. 138 , dated the 9th January , 1960, namely:-

Inthe said notification , under the heading , ' Elected under clause (a) ofsub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 24 and the entries relating thereto , the following entries shall be substituted , namely :----

"24. Dr. Suresh Ranchodbhai Patani ,"

Chitrkoot, 59

M.S. University ofBaroda" Nr . Nandanvan Gas Office , Alkapuri , Vadodara -390007 .

[No. V- 11013/2/2004- ME ( Policy- 1 ) ] K. V. S. RAO , Under Secy .

पर्यावरण और वन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 22 अगस्त , 2006

का.आ, 3478. - जबकि राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण अपीलीय प्राधिकरण के किसी एक सदस्य को अध्यक्ष के कार्यों के निष्पादन के लिए प्राधि- कृत करना आवश्यक, हो गया है;

अतः राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण अपीलीय प्राधिकरण अधिनियम , 1997 ( 1997 का 22 ) की धारा 13 के साथ पठित धारा 6 की उप - धारा (2) के अधीन प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरणअपीलीय प्राधिकरण ( वित्तीय एवं प्रशासनिक शक्तियां) 7564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नियमावली , 1998 के अधीन वर्णित राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण अपीलीय प्राधि- करण के अध्यक्ष हेतु विहित वित्तीय एवं प्रशासनिक शक्तियों का अध्यक्ष एवं उपाध्यक्ष की अनुपस्थिति में प्रयोग करने हेतु श्री कौशलेन्द्र प्रसाद , सदस्य राष्ट्रीय पर्यावरण अपीलीय प्राधिकरण को एतद्वारा प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फा. सं. जेड-20018/4/2005 - सी पी ए ]

आर. के. वैश , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS New Delhi , the 22nd August , 2006 S.O. 3478.- Whereas it has become necessary to authorize one of the Members of the National Environment Appellate Authority to discharge the functions of the chairperson;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (2 ) of Section 6 read with Section 13 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of 1997) , the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Kaushlendra Prasad, Member, National Environment Appellate Authority to exercise the financial and administrative powers of the Chairperson , National Environment Appellate Authority , as provided under the National Environment Appellate Authority ( Financial and Administrative Powers) Rules , 1998 in the absence of the Chairperson and Vice - chairperson .

[F. No. Z-20018/4/2005 -CPA] R. K. VAISH, Jt . Secy.

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय (उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3479. सार्वजनिक परिसर ( परिसर के अनाधि कृत रूप से मालिक बने व्यक्तियों से खाली कराना ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ श्री अशोक कुमार महतो , विश्व भारती को सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के समकक्ष सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है 'तथा निदेश देती है कि उपर्युक्त अधिकारी पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में बीरभूम जिले तथा कोलकाता शहर में स्थित विश्व- भारती अधि नियम, 1951 ( 1951 का 29 ) द्वारा स्थापित केन्द्रीय विश्वविद्यालय विश्व भारती के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण के अधीन तथा विश्व- भारती परिसर की स्थानीय सीमाओं के अंदर सार्वजनिक परिसर के संबंध में उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करेंगे तथा अधिकारी की ड्यूटी का निर्वाह करेंगे ।

[सं. एफ. 2-6/2006-डैस्क ( यू) ] के. एल. नंदवानी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE

DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education) New Delhi , the 17th August, 2006 s.o. 3479. In exercise ofthe powers confered by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Ashok Kumar Mahato , Visva Bharati ,

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] being an officer equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer ofGovernment, to be Estate Officer , for the purpose ofthe said Act, and directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed, on Estate Officer by or under the said Act in respect of the public premises within the local limits of Visva Bharati campusbelonging to and under the administrative control of Visva Bharati , a Central University established by the VisvaBharati Act, 1951 (29 of 1951) located in the district ofBirbhum and Kolkata City in the State of West Bengal .

[No. F. 2-6/2006-Desk (U) ] K. L. NANDWANI , Under Secy.

कृषि मंत्रालय ( कृषि अनुसंधान तथा शिक्षा विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3480.-केंद्रीय सरकार, कृषि मंत्रालय , कृषि अनुसंध ान एवं शिक्षा विभाग , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियमावली , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4) के अनुसरण में भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद् के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उन्हें एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है : -

1. गेहूं अनुसंधान क्षेत्रीय केन्द्र , फलावर डेल , शिमला (हिमाचल प्रदेश) ।

2. केन्द्रीय आलू अनुसंधान केन्द्र, ग्वालियर ( मध्य प्रदेश ) ।

[सं. 13-2/2002- हिंदी ] आर. चौधरी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education) New Delhi , the 22nd August, 2006

S.O. 3480.-In pursuance of Sub -rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language ( Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Agricultural Research and Education hereby notifies the following offices of the IndianCouncil ofAgricultural Reseach where the percentage ofHindi Knowing staff has gone above 80 % :-

1. Regional Centre for Wheat Research, Flowerdel, Shimla (H. P. ).

2. Central Potato Research Centre , Gwalior (M.P) . [No. 13-2/2002-Hindi ]

R. CHAUDHURI , Under Secy.

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

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3481.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (को) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

7565 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपाल: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू

होने की तिथि

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, Pane, Thiruvananthapuram .

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

[No. MTD24/T-139] 1.

S.K. GUPTA, Sc. ' F' & Head (MTD) आई एस 8062: 2006-

31-08-2006

संशोधन संख्या 1 , अगस्त 2006

नई दिल्ली , 24 अगस्त, 2006 प्राकृतिक गैस , तेल और द्रव के परिवहन के लिए भूमिगत पाइपलाइन/संरचना की केथोडिक सुरक्षा-रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

का. आ. 3482,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एक्त‌द्वास अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक काविवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है यह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि इन संशोधनों 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 , कोयम्बटूर , मुकहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

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

[सं. एम.टी.डी. 24/टी-139 ]

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

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अति- क्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, कीसंख्या

और वर्ष

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) (Department of Consumer Affairs)

1. आई एस 13465 (भाग

31जुलाई ,

2006

3/खंड 6): 2006,

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi, the 18th August , 2006

S.O. 3481. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule (1) ofRules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have beenissued:

SCHEDULE

विद्युतरोधन केलिए प्रयुक्त रेजिन आधास्ति अभिक्रियाशील यौगिक भाग 3 अलग अलग सामाग्री की विशिष्टियाँ खंड 6 मॉलि एस्टर आधारित असंतृप्त संसेचन रैजिन $

No. and year

SI . No. and year of the No. Indian Standards ofthe amend ment

Datefrom which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

31-08-2006

1. IS 8062 :2006- Cathodic Amendment

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

Protection ofBurried No. 1 , August

[सं. ईटी 02/टी -160 ] 2006

Pipeline/Structure for

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

NewDelhi , the 24th August, 2006 Transportation of Natural Gas, Oil and Liquids-Codeof

Practice

(FirstRevision)

S.O. 3482. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRaules (1 )of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies thatthe Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur 7566-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

SCHEDULE

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

Date of Established

No. and year of the Indian Standards, if any, Superse- dedby the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS 13465 (Part 3/Sec 6):

31 July,

2006 2006 , Resin based reactive compounds used for electrical

insulation Part 3 : Specification for individual materials Section 6 Unsaturated polyester based impregnating resins

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. ET02/T- 160] P. K. MUKHERJEE , Sc . ' F' & Head ( Electrotechnical ) नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2006 का. आ. 3483. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक संख्या (कों) की संख्या वर्ष

औरशीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

मार्च 2006 आई एस 15639: 2004/ आई एस ओ 10043 : 1994 बैंकिंग एवं संबंधित वितीय सेवाएँ-सूचना विनियम-संग्रह हेतु प्रेषणादेश पत्र

जून 2006 2. आई एस 15650 गुणता प्रबन्ध पद्धतियाँ-बैंकिंग उद्योग पर आई एस/ आई एस ओ 9001: 2000 लागू करने के लिए मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii)] इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एम एस डी/जी -8 ] नरेश कुमार ग्रोवर , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( प्रबन्ध एवं तंत्र) New Delhi , the 25th August, 2006

S.O. 3483.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRules( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl . No. and year of the No. Indian Standards Established

No. and year ofthe Indian Standards , if any, Superse- ded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

March 2006 1. IS 15639 : 2006/ISO 10043: 1994 'Banking and related financial services-Information interchange-Collection Orderform'

June2006 2. IS 15650: 2006 ' Quality management systems- Guidelines for imple- mentation of IS/ISO 9001: 2000 for banking industry'

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

[No.MSD/G-8 ] N.K. GROVER, Scientist ' F' & Head (MSD) 7567 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3484- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी ( सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री . संजीव जाधव , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना ( लोनी से पकनी तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर , मगरपट्टा - एम व एन विंग , हादापसर 411028 ( पुणे जिला) , महाराष्ट्र को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा | 7568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006 /BHADRAPADA 11. 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

तालुका: तासगांव

जिला: सांगली

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

उप-खण्ड संख्या

कम सं .

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर

6 7

449

1 निमणी

00 02 70

475

00 01 94

476

00 03 85

477

00 02 47

496

00 01 20

492

00 08

488

00 01 94

487

00 05 89

486

00 15 14

00 43 44

कुल

2 नेहरूनगर

16 76

00 01 83

00 07 97

00 04 45

00 00 71

00 01 28

00 33 00

कुल

3 येलावी

1949

00 03 69

2237

00 02 64

00 16

257

00 01 05

1860

00 10 11

1880

00 01 89

1881

00 06 60

1882

00 03 60

1946

1971

00 01 00

1948

00 07 68

00 55

कुल

689

4 तासगांव

00 22

640

00 07 85 642

00 15 41 641

00 29 07 622

00 48 24 611

00 14 10 549

00 02 56 459

00 28 93 380

00 04

14 7569

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

जिला: सांगली

तालुका : तासगांव

सर्वे नंबर गाव का नाम

कम सं.

3 1

321 तासगांव (निरंतर)

185 5 चिंचणी

6 भैरेवाडी

7 सावडे

8 कौलगे

9 वाघापूर

10 खुजगांव

11 बस्तवडे

2538 G1/06-9

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल गट नंबर

उप-खण्ड संख्या

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर

8 4

6 7

00 02

00 06 28

01 82

कुल

539

00 01 50

00 04 24 540

90 544

00 02

63 553

00 06

00 08 98 576

00 15

575

00 01 58 618

622

00 10 74 863

00 01 30 862

00 02

904

00 08

1003

00 01

1005

00 03 71 1043

00 83

कुल

182

00 06

171

82 170

00 19

कुल

00 01 40 280

00 01 40

कुल

46 274

00 03

273

00 03

152

108

00 07 96

कुल

364

00 06 366

00 01 20 365

00 18

370

00 26

कुल

00 27 46 103

00 04 06 104

00 31

कुल

00 01 770

00 01

कुल [PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] 7570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11, 1928

जिला: सांगली

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र तालुका: तासगांव

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड संख्या

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.

6 7

00 09 04 317

12 सावलज

00 01

104

00 06 51 107

00 09

07 25

533

02 555

1अ+4ब+3+5+ 6 00 02

00 13 88 7

5ब+2ब

00 57 34

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/26/2004 ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2006

S. O. 3484.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni (Pune) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra , an extension pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sanjeev Jadhav, Competent Authority , Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project (from Loni to Pakni via Hazarwadi ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mega Center , Magarpatta M & N Wing , Hadapsar 411 028 (Pune District) , Maharashtra .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7571

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

SCHEDULE

Taluka : TASGAON

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Name of the Village Survey No.

Sr. No..

4 2

449 1 NIMANI

475

476

477

496

492

488

487

486

64 2 NEHRUNAGAR

4 3 YELAVI

1949

2237

257

1860

1880

1881

1882

1946

1971

1948

689

4 TASGAON

640

642

641

622

611

549

459

380

Area

Sub-Division No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt 5

7 8

00 02 70

00 01 94

00 03 85

00 02 47

00 01 20

00 08 31

00 01- 94

00 05 89

00 15 14 Total

00 43 44

16 76

00 01 83

00 07 97

04 45

00 00 71

00 01 28

33 00 Total

00 03 69

00 02 64

00 16 54

00 01 05

10 11

00 01 89

00 06 60

00 03 60

00 07 68

55 30 Total

00 22 63 2

00 07 85

00 15 41

00 29 07

00 48 24

14 10

00 02 56

00 28 93

00 04 88 7572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006 /BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

Taluka TASCAON

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

District : SANGLI

Sr.

GatNo.

Nante of the Village Survey No.

321

4 TASGAON (Contd.)

185

5 CHINCHANI

539

540

544

553

576

575

618

622

863

862

904

1003

1005

1043

182 6 BAHIREWADI

171

170 7 SAWARDE

280 8 KAULGE

274

273

-152

108 9 VAGHAPUR

364

366

365

370 10 KHUJGAON

103

104 11 BASTAWADE

770 State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub -Division No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt 5

00 02 99

00 06 28 Total

01 82 94

00 01 50

00 04 24

00 02 90

00 06 63

00 08 98

00 15 43

00 01 58

13 30

00 10 74

00 01 30

00 02 68

00 08 63

00 01 71

00 03 71

100 83 33 Total

00 11 75

00 06 88

00 00 82 Total

00 19 45

00 01 40

00 01 40 Total

00 00 46

00 03 91

00 03 19

00 00 40 Total

00 07 96

00 00 61

00 06 65

00 01 20 4

00 18 19 Total

00 26 65

00 27 46

00 04 06 Total

00 31 52

00 01 99

Total

01 99 7573 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

Taluka : TASGAON

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Name of the Village Survey No.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division Να.

Hectare Are Sq.mt

7 12 SAWLAJ

317

00 09 04

104

00 01 41

107

00 06 51

00 07 71

00 09 52

533

00 07 25

555

00 02 02

1A+4B+3+5+6

58+28

00 13 88

Total

00 57 34

[F. No: R-31015/26/2004-O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3485.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रत्तीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्त्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्तं अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री. एम व्ही चिटनिस, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन और मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना (लोनी से पकनी तक हजारबाडी के रास्ते), हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर , मगरपट्टा एम व एन विंग , हादांपसर - 411 028 (पुणे जिला) , महाराष्ट्र को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा | 7574

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] THE. GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

अनुसूची

जिला: सातारा

तालुका: खटाव

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं .

उप-खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

6 7

611

00 02

1 मोल

00 02

कल

1285

2 डिस्कल

1316

00 02 86

1022

00 19 42

1284

00 02 63

1271

00 06

00 31 87

कुल

328

00 01 80 3 ललगुण

330

00 01

384

00 05 84

00 04 11

1098

00 23 49

1065

00 01 24

411

00 05 62

00 43 92

कुल

307

4 नागनाथवाडी

00 06 28

130

00. 33 83

00. 40 11

कुल

361

00 09

5 पवारवाडी

357

00 01

391

00 11

544

00 01

00 23 46

कुल

1125

00 03 08 6 पुसेगाँव

00 03 08

कुल

878

00 18

7 विसापुर

1157

00 05 15

893

00. 04 58

891

00 00 98

00: 28 93

कुल

852

00 07 64 8 खातगुण

00 07 64

कुल

569

9 जखणगाँव

00 03 17

732

00 03 38

699

00 03 89

00 10 44

कुल 7575 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

जिला: सातारा

तालुका: खटाव

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं.

उप-खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

6 7

724

00 03 48 10 वरूड

00 03 48

कुल

00 22 33 11 औंध

00 22 33

कुल

951

00 07

12 फ्लशी

00 07 45

कुल

767

00 07 99

13 चोराडे

800

00 07. 01

0015.00

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/32/2004 ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th August, 2006

S. O. 3485. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni ( Pune) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra , an extension pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri M.V.Chitnis , Competent Authority , Mumbai- Pune Pipeline and Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project (from Loni to Pakni via Hazarwadi ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mega Center , Magarpatta - M & N Wing, Hadapsar - 411 028 (Pune District) , Maharashtra.

7576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006 /BHADRAPADA 11. 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : KHATAV

District : SATARA

Area

Gat No.

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Sr. No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

Nameofthe Village

7 8 2

611

00 02 82 1 MOL

Total

00 02 82

00 00 60

1285

2 DISKAL

00 02 86

1316

19 42

1022

00 02 63

1284

00 06 36

1271

Total

31 87

328

00 01 80 3. LALGUN

330

00 01 82

384

05 84

00 04 11

00 23 49

1098

01 24

1065

00 05 62

411

00 43 92

Total

307

00 06 28 4 NAGNATHWADI

00 33 83

130

40 11

Total

361

09 50

5 PAWARWADI

357

00 01 35

391

544

00 01 50

Total

23 46

00 03 08

1125

6 PUSEGAON

Total

03 08

878

00 18 22 7 VISAPUR

00 05 15

1157

00 04 58

893

891

00, 00 98

Total

00 28 93

00 07 64

852

8 KHATGUN

00 07 64

Total

00 03 17

569

9 JAKHANGAON

732

03 38

00 03 89

699

Total

10 44 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7577

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

Taluka : KHATAV

District : SATARA

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name ofthe Village

Sub-Division No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

8 10 VARUD

724

00 03 48

Total

00 03 48 11 AUNDH

00 22 33

Total

00 22 33 12PALSHI

951

00 07 45

Total

00 07 45 13 CHORADE

767

00 07 99

800

00 07 01

Total

00 15 00

[F. No. R-31015/32/2004- O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3486.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता हे कि मध्य प्रदेश में मांगल्या (इन्दौर) संस्थापन से हरयाणा 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 केन्दीय 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 (1962का 50 ), की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री मुम्बई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, कोटा- 324005 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन दीपक नन्दी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बी-105, इन्द्र विहार, तलवंडी,

अनुसूची

राज्य :राजस्थान

तहसील: केशवरायपाटन

जिला:बून्दी

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम.

4 2

0.0220

377

1 पटोलिया

0.0440

378

0.0860

315

0.0360

320

0.0360

313

0.0150

223

[फा. सं. आर-31015/9/2004 ओ.आर.- II ]

ए, गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 2538 GI /06-10 7578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2006

S.O. 3486.- 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 NCT of Delhi should be laid by 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 land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority, Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, B- 105, Indravihar, Talwandi , Kota- 324005 (Rajasthan) .

SCHEDULE

STATE : RAJASTHAN

DISTRICT : BUNDI

TEHSIL : KESHAVRAI PATAN

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO .

S.No. NAME OF VILLAGE

0.0220

377

1 PATOLIYA

0.0440

378

0.0860

315

0.0360

320

0.0360

313

0.0150

223

[F. No. R-31015/ 9/2004- O.R. -II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

7579 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 29 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3487.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इन्दौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादकों 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 इसने 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 पाईपलाईन (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 हैं;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नन्दी, समक्ष प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई मांगल्या पाईपलाईन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड़, 73 , प्रतापविला, रोजविला स्कीम बर्ड सेंचुरी रोड, भरतपुर (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: भरतपुर

तहसील: भरतपुर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क्र ०

0.0120

200

1 टॉटपुर

0.0256

116

0.0114

121

0.0289

123

0.0070

128

0.0095

170

0.0138

212

0.0077

204 7580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

सर्वे नंबर

क्र०

ग्राम का नाम

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

0.0203

1622

तुहिया

1867

0.0581

1884

0.0168

0.0124

1784

1785

0.0190

1786

0.0190

0.0100

1613

850

0.0305

गुंडवा

0.0284

823

845

0.0210

4 सेवर कलां

803

0.0414

809

0.0614

771

0.0324

689

0.0846

धौरमुई

716

0.0400

332/3399

0.1312

कस्बा भरतपुर चक नं .2

7 विलौठी

219

0.0100

646

0.0297

0.0140

257

863

0.0470

864

0.0160

247

0.0234

311

0.0510

8 जघीना 1

2463

0.0562

0.0160

1364

1424

0.0720

0.0252

2469

145

0.0280

अड्डी

98/187

0.0790

116

0.0130

0.1000

102

0.0464

97/173

0.0100

10 पार

752

0.0190

783/1106

0.0320

783

0.0200

[फा. सं. आर-31015/82/2005 ओ. आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवरं संचिव 7581 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2006

S. O. 3487.- 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 NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority, Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 73 , Pratap villa, Rose villa scheme , Bird Century Road Bharatpur (Rajasthan) .

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : BHARATPUR STATE: RAJASTHAN

TEHSIL : BHARATPUR

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE NAME OF VILLAGE

S.No.

200

0.0120

1 TONTPUR

0.0256

116

121

0.0114

123

0.0289

0.0070

128

170

0.0095

0.0138

212

0.0077

204

0.0203

1622

2 TUHIYA

0.0581

1867

0.0168

1884

0.0124

1784

0.0190

1785

1786

0.0190

1613

0.0100 7582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE

S.No.

NAME OF VILLAGE

3 GUNDVA

0.0305

850

823

0.0284

845

0.0210

4 SEWAR KALAN

803

0.0414

809

0.0614

771

0.0324

5 DHORMUEI

689

0:0846

716

0.0400

6 KASBA BHARATPUR CHAK NO 2

332/3399

0.1312.

7 VILOTHI

219

0.0100

646

0.0297

257

0.0140

863

0.0470

864

0.0160

247

0.0234

311

0.0510

8 JAGHINA 1

2463

0.0562

1364

0.0160

1424

0.0720

2469

0.0252

9 ADDI

145

0.0280

98/187

0.0790

116

0.0130

0.1000

102

0.0464

97/173

0.0100

10 PAR

752

0.0190

783/1106

0.0320

783

0.0200

[F. No. R - 31015/82/2005-0.R . - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3488.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 738 तारीख 20 फरवरी, 2006, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 25 फरवरी , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 15 अप्रेल, 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

7583 और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

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

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

अनुसूची

तहसील: केशवरायपाटन

राज्य :राजस्थान

जिला:बून्दी

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

0.0150

1 बालापुरा

47.

0.0150

0.0450

[फा. सं. आर-31015/9/2004 ओ. आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2006

S.O. 3488 ( E ) .- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.738 , dated the 20th February, 2006, issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 25th February ,2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 15th April , 2006;

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

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

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

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

7584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT: BUNDI

TEHSIL : KESHAVRAI PATAN

STATE : RAJASTHAN S.No. NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE 2

1 BALAPURA

0.0150

0.0450

[ F. No. R - 31015 /9/ 2004 - O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3489.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता हैकि मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्व में मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रचर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी/ दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पुणे जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स 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, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री . एल . आर . गोतारणे , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , पूर्व मे गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रचर कंपनी लिमिटेड, शामा हेरिटेज, "फ" बिल्डिंग फ्लैट नं . 4 ए, केशवनगर , चिचवंडगाँव, पुणे 411033, महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

अनुसूची

जिला: पुणे मंडल/तहसिल/तालुक: शिरूर

गोंद का नाम

सर्वे नंबर / गट नंबर 1

58* 1) इनामवि

539

311 2) पिंपळसुटी

128

76/13/1*

40/3*

243/2/1

243 3) शिरसगाँवै काटा

119/1*

403

151

161/1अ 4) कोळगाँव डोळस

294* 5) काकडेवाडी

794* 6) न्हावरे

806

808

809

810

811

812

814

815

816

818

819

820

821

453

456

459

460

461

462

463

464

465 2538GI/06-11

7585

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सी-एयर 3

00 7586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/ BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

466 6) न्हावरे (निरंतर )

468

776

775

774

773

772

771

769

768

767

766

765

764

763

644*

643

464* 7) उरळगांव

177*

365

109

222

217

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

सर्वे नंबर 315 में नाला

8) दहिवडी

31* 9) पारोडी

72* 10) शिवतक्रार म्हाळुंगी

621* 11 ) टाकळी भिमा

795

424

423

418

417

678

672

671

674

670

669

649 00

21 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006 / भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

690 12) कासारी

405 13) तळेगाँव ढमढेरे

408

409

410

411

416

1805

1304* 14) शिक्रापुर

1592*

1677*

1678*

1288

1289

1292

1607

1606

1608

1609

1610

1611

1614

1615

1616

1619

1620

1621

1625

1626

1627

1628

1629

1630

1631

1632

1633

1634

1635

1636

1637

1638

7587 3

00 .

01.

3000

00 7588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11, 1928 [PART II -SEC. 3 (ii)) 1

1639

14) शिकापुर (निरंतर)

1640

16-41

1842

1643

1845

1675

1676

80 15) करंदी

694*

695

691"

€3

414*

16) वाजेवाडी

411

410

367

382

354

00 * का. आ . 563 दिनांक: 17/02/2005 द्वारा पी.एम.पी. ऐक्ट, 1962 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत सूचित किये गये सर्वे नंबर इस प्रतिपादन नया विस्तीर्ण के लिए ।

{ फा. सं. एल-14014/48/2004-जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st August , 2006

S. O. 3489.- 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 Pune District in the State of Maharashtra, 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 is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the Pipeline under the land to Shri . L. R. Gotarne , Competent Authority, Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, Formerly Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited , Shyama Heritage , "F " Building Flat No. 4A, Keshavnagar, Chinchwadgaon, Pune -411033 , Maharashtra State .

[ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7589

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

Schedule

Mandal /Thesil /Taluk: Shirur

District : Pune Village

Survery/Gat No. 1

58* 1) inamgaon

539

311 2) Pimpalsuti

128

76/1A/1*

40/3*

243/2/1*

243 3) Shirasgaon Kata

119/1*

403

151

161/1A 4) Kolagaon Dolas

294* 5) Kakadewadi

794* 6) Nhavare

806

808

809

810

811

812

814

815

816

818

819

820

821

453

456

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466 State : Maharashtra

Area to be acquired for ROU

Are

C-Are Hectare

81 00

00 :

02 00

23 00

00 00

01 00

11 00

50 00

49 00

91 00

26 00

81 00

10 00

47 00

49 00

55 00

96 00

60 00

10 00

90 00

40 00

00 7590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

468 6)Nhavare(Contd.... )

776

775

774

773

772

771

769

768

767

766

765

764

763

644*

643

464* 7) Uralgaon

177*

365

109

222

217

Nala between

8) Dahiwadi

Survey No. 315

31* 9) Parodi

72* 10) Shiv takrar Mahalungi

621* 11) Takli Bhima

795

424

423

418

417

678

672

671

674

670

669

649

690 12) Kasari

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

40 00

30 00

68 00

52 00

60 00

20 00

73 00

80 00

50 00

36 00

50 00

03 00

44 00

50 00

49 00

34 00

00 00

70 00

80 00

20 00

50 00

00 00

02 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्रपद 11 , 1928 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3 1

405

13) Talegaon Dhamdhere

408

409

410

411

416

1805

1304*

14) Shikrapur

1592*

1677*

1678*

1288

1289

1292

1607

1.606

1608

1609

1610

1611

1614

1615

1616

1619

1620

1621

1625

1826

1627

1628

1629

1630

1631

1632

1633

1634

1635

1636

1637

1638

1639

7591 4

5 01

00 00

50 00

50 01

50 00

50 03

90 62

34 15

53 00

76 19

20 07

80 03

00 06

45 03

00 06

10 03

50 03

19 03

30 01

70 01

30 07

20 08

00 08

40 02

30 04

30 01

30 08

00 04

70 06

20 04

00 01

30 02

00 02

40 02

30 17

00 06

30 7592

[PART II- SEC . 3 (i) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

1640

14) Shikrapur (Contd....)

1641

1642

1643

1644

1645

1846

1675

1676

694*

15) Karandi

695*

691*

414*

48 16) Wajewadi

411"

410

367

382

354

*Survey Nos. notified vide S.O. 563 , Dated 17/02/2005 u /s 3(1 ) of P& MP Act 1962. Present proposal is for additional andant

[F. No. L-14014/48/2004-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL:, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3490.- 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 मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी/ दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पुणे और अहमदनगर जिलो के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स 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 , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध 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, उनमें 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 के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री . एल . आर . गोतारणे, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलाएन्स गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड, शामा हेरिटेज , "फ" विल्डिंग, फ्लैट नं . 4 ए, केशवनगर. चिचवंडगाँव, पुणे-411033 , महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा। A

7593

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची मंडल: खेड

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिल्ला: पुणे

गोंद का नाम

गट नंबर / सब डिविजन नं

2 1

314 1) शेलू

335

334

332

64 2) भांबोली

353

354

355

234

232

233

239

240

241

242

245

230

247

248

250

251

252 2538GI /06-12

आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सीएयर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

40 00

30 00

40 00

70 00

60 00

00 00

50 00

00 00

70 00

50 00

90 00

30 00

90 00

50 00

80 00

00 00

80 00

50 7594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006 /BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

2 1

गट नंबर 230 और 228 के बीच का रास्ता 2) भांबोली (निरंतर)

253

228

64 3) सावरदरी

152

151

155

156

157

158

136

168

167

166

160

94 4) खलुंबरे

101

103

गट नंबर 103 में नाला

104

गट नंबर 104 और 230 के बीच का नाला

230

229

226

225

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

5 00

50 00

60 00

50 00

30 00

00 00

50 00

00 00

60 00

20 00

10 00

70 00

80 00

00 00

90 00

20 01

50 00

00 00

40 00

90 00

00 00

50 00

00 00

06 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

224 4) खलुंबरे (निरंतर)

223

214

213

208

207

205

206

204

203

गट नंबर 203 में रास्ता

198

199

196

गट नंबर 198 में नाला

197

192

गट नंबर 192 और 246 के बीच का रास्ता

246

256

255

249

250

252

253

254

328

326

325

324

322

321

320

318

313

312

303

7595

5 3

50 00

40 00

60 00

70 00

00 00

90 00

50 00

60 00

20 00

00 00

70 00

30 00

40 00

00 00

50 00

60 00

00 00

80 00

03 7596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006 /BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

301 4) अनुवो (निरंतर)

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

5 00

60 00

गट नंबर 301 और 300 के बीच का रास्ता

300

299

288

287

285

284

269

277

271

288

270

268

272 5)नियोज

30 00

20 00

50 00

00 00

40 00

00 00

खलुंबरे और निघोज गाँव सीमा के बीच का नाला

833

832

831

823

825

817

826

816

804

806

795

798

799

800

653

654

655

656

651

650

638 00

60 00

50 00

20 00

80 00

60 00

40 00

20 00

50 00

30 00

60 -00

60 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

641 5)निघोज (निरंतर)

गट नंबर 650 में नाला

640

642

643

645

605

607

गट नंबर 607 में रास्ता

600

597

599

596

591

583

581

गट नंबर 561 में रास्ता

577

गट नंबर 577 में रास्ता

इंद्रायणी नदी मंडल : हवेली

जिला: पुणे

25 1) तळवडे

गट नंबर 56 में रास्ता

72 मंडल: दीड

जिल्ला: पुणे

2A 1) सोनवडी

7597 3

5 00

00 00

20 00

80 00

00 00

70 00

80 00

70 00

80 00

00 00

30 00

00 00

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र 00

20 00

70 00

40 00

00 00

20 00

00 00

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र 00

10 7598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

363 1) सोनवडी (निरंतर)

365

364

355

236

237

233

238

239

240

241

235

242

243

244

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

5 00

50 00

70 00

80 00

20 00

50 00

30 00

60 00

50 00

गट नंबर 244 और 217 के बीच का रास्ता

217

216

215

214

80 00

00 00

गट नंबर 215 और 193 के बीच का कैनाल

10 00

गट नंबर 193 में गाड़ी रास्ता

193 01

50 00

गट नंबर 193 में गाड़ी रास्ता

180

179

177

176

175

173 00

50 00

20 00

40 00

गट नंबर 173 में कैनाल

153

154

30 00

60 00

गट नंबर 154 और 132 के बीच का रेल्वे मार्ग

132 00

30 00

गट नंबर 132 और 134 के बीच का गाड़ी रास्ता

134

20 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii )]

2 1

135 1) सोनवडी (निरंतर)

136/6

136/7

136/8

123

357

115 2) गिरीम

116

गट नंबर 116 और 136 के बीच का नाला

136

132

131

130

149

गट नंबर 149 और 130 के बीच का रास्ता

128

129

127

150

151

163

162

161

221

222

223

226

227

235

237

गट नंबर 237 में कैनाल

238

239

240

7599 3

5 00

50 00

80 00

70 00

50 00

30 00

10 00

40 00

50 00

66 00

70 00

58 00

81 00

65 00

15 00

39 00

45 00

10 00

56 00

60 00

68 00

83 00

48 00

07 00

93 00 .

20 00

46 00

55 7600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11. 1928

72 2) गिरीम (निरंतर)

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

5 00

70 00

62 00

38 00

29 00

00 00

37 00

49 00

30 00

गट नंबर 62 और 61 के बीच का कैनाल

69 00

46 00

20 00

गट नंबर 60 और 59 के बीच का रास्ता

96 00

65 00

50 00

गट नंबर 59 में नाला

590

591

93 00

78 00

76 00

गट नंबर 58 में नाला

गट नंबर 25 में नाला

598

600

628

629

599

630

631

632

633

634

635

559

660

681

695

698

898 00

48 00

40 00

90 00

91 00

30 00

10 00

97 00

24 00

80 00

28 00

48 00

20 00

66 00

15 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

697 2) गिरीम (निरंतर)

691

690

689

728

गट नंबर 729 में कॅनाल

729

727

गट नंबर 727 और 726 के बीच का नाला

726

गट नंबर 726 मे नाला

723

720

गिरीम गाँव सीमा के बीच का रास्ता मंडल : श्रीगोंदा

जिल्म 8 अहमदनगर

532 1) काष्टी

533

561

562

563

564

गट नंबर 564 और 587 के बीच का रास्ता

587

588

589

584

744

594

गट नंबर 594 और 748 के बीच का नाला

743

806

746

747

गट नंबर 747 में गाड़ी रस्ता

गट नंबर 747 में कैनाल

745

746

गट नंबर 746 और 605 के बीच का रास्ता 2538 G1/06-13

7601

5 3

19 00

64 00

96 00

47 00

90 00

62 00

35 00

91 00

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

00 00

40 00

10 00

50 00

10 00

90 00

60 00

00 00

60 00

00 00

30 00

80 00

00 00

30 00

04 7602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

807 1) काष्टी (निरंतर)

805

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

50 00

70 00

गट नंबर 805 में कैनाल

804

803

802

801

808

818

817

20 00

40 00

30 00

80 00

40 00

50 00

गट नंबर 818 में नाला

70 00

गट नंबर 818 और 1064 के बीच का रास्ता

1063

1064

60 00

00 00

गट नंबर 1064 में नाला

गट नंबर 1064 और 1226 के बीच का रास्ता

1226

1219

1220

1050

40 00

60 00

गट नंबर 1221 में गाड़ी रस्ता

1051

1221

1049

1048

1047

1078

40 00

20 00

40 00

गट नंबर 1078 और 1079 में नाला

1079

1097

1096

1113

1114

40 00

10 00

00 00

गट नंबर 1114 में गाड़ी रस्ता

गट नंबर 1114 में कैनाल

1115

80 00

40 00

गट नंबर 1115 और 1116 के बीच का गाड़ी रास्ता

1118

10 00

50 00

00 7603

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

1119 1 ) काष्टी (निरंतर)

1120

गट नंबर 1120 और 1123 में रास्ता

1123

गट नंबर 1122 और 1123 में कैनाल

1122

1121

1125

149 2) निमगाँव खलू

147

142

गट नंबर 142 में कैनाल

140

139

138

137

136

गट नंबर 134 और 137 के बीच का रास्ता

134

129

128

127

126

123

124

121

120

119

100

101

गट नंबर 38 में रस्ता

00 00

40 00

80 00

20 00

00 00

60 00

80 00

60 00

10 00

30 00

90 00

00 00

10 00

00 00

60 00

00 01

84 00

00 7604

[PART II-Soc . 3 (i ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

2) निमगांव खलू (निरंतर)

भिमा नदी

[फा. सं . एल-14014/24/2006-जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st August , 2006

S. O. 3490.- 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 Pune and Ahmednagar Districts in the State of Maharashtra, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of the 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 are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the Pipeline under the land to Shri . L. R. Gotarne , Competent Authority, Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, Shyama Heritage , " F " Building , Flat No. 4A, Keshavnagar , Chinchwadgaon, Pune -411033 , Maharashtra State .

Schedule

State: Maharashtra Mandal: Khed

District : Pune

Area to be acquired for ROU GatNo./Sub-division No.

Name of Village

C-Are

Are

Hectare

314

1) Shelu

335

334

332

2) Bhamboli

61 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006 / भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

2 1

62 2)Bhemball (Contd....)

353

354

355

234

232

233

239

240

241

242

245

230

247

248

250

251

252

Road in between Gat No. 230 & 228

253

228

64 3) Savardari

152

151

155

156

157

7605 3

00 00

80 00

50 00

00 00

70 00

50 00

90 00

10 00

80 00

50 00

00 7606

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

2 1

158 Savaldar (Contd ....)

138

168

187

166

160

94 4) Khalumbere

101

103

Nala in Gat No. 103

104

Naia in between Gat No. 104 & 230

230

229

226

225

224

223

214

213

208

207

205

206

204

203

Road in Gat No. 203

198

199

196

Nala in Gat No. 198

197

192

Road in between Gat No. 192 & 246

246

256

255

249

250

252

253

254

80 00

90 00

40 01

20 00

50 00

00 00

40 00

00 00

20 00

40 00

00 00

50 00

40 00

60 00

70 00

20 00

70 00

00 00

90 00

50 00

20 00

60 00

70 00

30 00

90 00

00 00

70 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

328 4) Khalumbere ( Contd .... )

326

325

324

322

321

320

318

313

312

303

301

7607 3

50 00

00 00

60 00

40 00

00 00

Road in between Gat No. 301 & 300

300

299

286

287

285

284

269

277

271

288

270

268

272

30 00

02/

00 00

50 00

00 00

10 00

00 00

Nala in between V. B. Khalumbere &

5) Nighoje

Nighoje

833

832

831

823

825

817

826

816

804

806

795

798

799

800

653

654

00 00

60 00

50 00

00 00

20 00

80 00

60 00

40 00

20 00 7608

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

655 5) Nighoje ( Contd .... )

656

651

650

638

641

Nala in Gat No. 650

640

642

643

645

605

607

Road in Gat No. 607

600

597

599

596

591

583

581

Road in Gat No. 581

577

Road in Gat No. 577

Indrayani River Mandal : Haveli

District : Pune

25 1) Talavde

Road in GatNo. 56

50 00

30 00

60 00

60 50 00

00 00

70 00

20 00

70 00

80 00

70 00

80 00

00 00

State : Maharashtra 00

00 00

70 00

00 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 Mandai :Daund

District: Pune

2A 1) Sonvadi

363

365

364

355

236

237

233

238

239

240

241

235

242

243

244

Road in between Gat No. 244 & 217

217

216

215

214

Canal in between Gat No. 215 & 193

CartTrack in Gat No. 193

193

Cart Track in Gat No.193

180

179

177

176

175

173

Canal in Gat No. 173

153

154

Railway in between Gat No. 154 & 132

132 2538 GI/06-14

7609

5 3

State: Maharashtra

10 00

50 00

80 00

50 00

30 00

70 00

50 00

70 00

50 00

80 00

50 00

00 00

10 00

50 00

40 00

20 00

70 00

00 00

19 7610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

CartTrack in between Gat No.132 & 134

1) Sonvadi ( Contd ....)

134

135

136/6

136/7

136/8

123

357

115 2) Girim

116

Nala in between Gat No. 116 & 136

136

132

131

130

149

Road in between Gat No. 149 & 130

128

129

127

150

151

163

162

161

221

222

223

226

227

235

237

Canal in Gat No.237

238

239

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 00

30 00

20 00

50 00

80 00

50 00

40 00

70 00

30 00

66 00

58 00

65 00

15 00

39 00

58 00

45 00

56 00

55 00

56 00

48 00

07 00

81 00

93 00

20 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

240 2) Girim (Contd.... )

Canal inbetween Gat No. 62 & 61

Road in between Gat No. 60 & 59

Nala in Gat No. 59

590

591

Nala in Gat No. 58

Nala in Gat No. 25

598

600

628

829

599

630

631

632

633

834

635

659

660

661

695

7611

55 00

70 00

38 00

37 00

49 00

30 00

69 00

48 00

20 00

96 00

65 00

50 00

78 00

19 00

58 00

40 00

90 00

91 00

40 00

30 00

10 00

97 00

28 00

48 00

66 00 7612

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

696 2) Girim (Contd.... )

698

697

691

690

689

728

66 00

15 00

19 00

64 00

96 00

42 00

47 00

Canal in Gat No. 729

729

727 00

90 00

62 00

Nala in between Gat No. 727 & 726

726 01

76 00

Nala in GatNo. 726

723

720 00

36 00

91 00

Road atV.B. of Girim

Mandal : Shrigonda

State : Maharashtra

District: Ahmednagar

532 1)Kashti

533

561

562

563

564 00

40 00

10 00

Road in between Gat No.564 & 587

587

588

589

584

744

594 00

60 00

70 00

80 00

50 00

Nala in between Gat No.594 & 748

743

806

748

747 00

50 00

30 00

CartTrack in Gat No. 747

00 00

Canai in Gat No. 747

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

745 1) Kashti (Contd ....)

746

7613

30 00

Road in between Gat No. 746& 805

807

805

50 00

70 00

Canal inbetween Gat No. 805

804

803

802

801

808

818

817

20 00

40 00

80 00

40 00

90 00

50 00

Nala in Gat No. 818

70 00

Road in between Gat No.818 & 1064

1063

1064

Nala in Gat No.1064.

00 00

Road in between Gat No. 1064 & 1226

1226

1219

1220

1050

80 00

40 00

90 00

CartTrack in Gat No.1221

1051

1221

1049

1048

1047

1078

$00

50 00

40 00

60 00

40 00

Nala in between Gat No.1078 & 1079

1079.

1097

1096

1113

1114

40 00

10 00

00 00

.00

70 00

CartTrack in Gat No.1114

7614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

70 00

Canal in Gat No. 1114

1) Kashti (Contd .... )

1115

CartTrack in between Gat No. 1115 &

1116

1118

1119

1120

40 00

10 00

00 00

40 00

Road in between Gat No. 1120 & 1123

1123 00

50 00

Canal in between Gat No. 1123 & 1122

1122

1121

1125

149 2)Nimgaon Khalu

147

142 00

70 00

00 00

Canal in Gat No.142

140

139

138

137

136 00

20 01

40 00

80 00

Road in between Gat No. 134 & 137

134

129

128

127

126

123

124

121

120

119

100

101

40 00

20 00

10 00

70 00

00 00

60 7615

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

2)Nimgaon Khalu (Contd....)

Road in Gat No. 38

Bhima River

V.B. = Village Boundary

[F. No. L-14014/24/2006-G.P.] S.B MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3491.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता हैकि मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड पूर्व में मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रचर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मैसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के गोवा में उत्तरी/ दक्षिणी अफ्तर में खोज ब्लॉकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में पुणे जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स 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 , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें 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 तारीश्व से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री. एल. आर. गोतारणे , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलाएंस गैस पाइपलाइन्स लिमिटेड , पूर्व मे गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रचर कंपनी लिमिटेड, शामा हेरिटेज, "फ" बिल्डिंग फ्लैट नं . 4 ए, केशवनगर, चिचवंडगांव , पुणे 411033, महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 7616

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

अनुसूची

मंडल: खेड

जिला: पुणे

गट नंबर / सब डिविजन नं .

गाँव का नाम

2 1

11 1) साबळेवाडी

210

221

233* 2) बहुळ

415*

1052

1058*

1057

273

1049

1865* 3) पिंपळगांव तर्फ खेड

360*

357

387

256

1141 4) काळूस

524*

52*

1709

1985

1026

864

नाला 5) वाकी बुद्रुक

400*

695

629

394*

615

686 6) आंबेठाण

मंडल: मावळ

जिल्हा: पुणे

516 1) वादलवाडी

514

720* 2) नवलाक उम्ब्रे

465*

9 3)पवलेवाडी

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र.

आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सीसपर हेक्टेयर tha

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र,

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

165 4) मालेगाव बुद्रुक

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

7617

सर्वे नंबर 87/12 और 120/ अ में रास्ता

5) सावळे

97/4*

00 * का . आ. 3209 दिनांक 15/12/2004, द्वारा पी.एम. पी . ऐक्ट, 1962 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत सूचित किये गये सर्वे नंबर इस प्रतिपादन नया विस्तीर्ण के लिए ।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/50/2004-जी.पी. ] एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st August, 2006

S. O. 3491.- 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 Pune District in the State of Maharashtra, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of the 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;

Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty -one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub - section (1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the Pipeline under the land to Shri . L. R. Gotarne , Competent Authority , Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, Formerly Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited, Shyama Heritage, "P" Building Flat No. 4A, Keshavnagar, Chinchwadgaon, Pune -411033 , Maharashtra State.

Schedule

District: Pune Mandal : Khed

SurveyNo./Sub-division No.

Village

2 1

11 1) Sablewadi

210

221

233* 2) Bahul

415*

1052

1058*

1057

273

1049 2538 G1/06-15

State: Maharashtra

Area tobe acquired for ROU Are

Hectare

C-Are 3

80 00

50 00

10 00

11 00

00 00

40 00

00 00

40 00

63 00

83 00

17 7618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

1865 3) Pimpalgaon tarfKhed

360

357*

387

256

1141 4)Kalus

524

1709

1985

1026

864

Nala 5) Waki budurk

400*

695

629

394

615k

6884 6) Ambethan

Mandal : Maval

District: Pune

516 1) Badalwadi

514

720* 2) Navalakh-Umbre

465*

9 3) Pawalewadi

165 4) Malegaon-budruk

5) Savle

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

5 00

56 00

93 00

00 00

88 00

53 00

96 00

85 00

48 00

60 00

00 00

98 00

State: Maharashtra

40 02

36 01

30 00

57 00

Roadbetween Survery

No. 87/12 and 120 /A

9714

00 00

*SurveyNos . Notified vide S.O. 3209 Dated 15/12/2004 u/s 3 (1 ) of P &MP Act 1962. Present proposal is for additional extent.

[F. No. L-14014/50/2004-G.P.J S.B MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 31 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3492.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए जामनगर भोपाल और काकिनाडा हैदराबाद गोवा पाइपलाइन को आपस में जोडने के लिए गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमीटेड ( अभी इसका नामरिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमीटेड तबदीलकिया है ) 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 जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7619 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

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, उनमें 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 प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री. जे ऐन अमीन , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलायन्स गैस द्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमीटेड , पाइपलाइन परियोजना , आनंद महल अपार्टमेंट , आनंद महल रोड, अडाजन , सूरत - 395009, गुजरात राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: गुजरातं

तहसील: ओलपाड

जिला: सुरत

आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर / ब्लॉक नं

गाँव कानाम

सी-स्पर

हेक्टेयर एयर

439

1. मुळद (ग्यासपुर)

440

441

454

455

436

रोड

456

434

433

432

430

428

431

[फा. सं. एल-14014/28/2006-जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st August , 2006

S. O. 3492.- Whereas It appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through an interconnection between Jamnagar Bhopal and Kakinada - Hydrabad Goa pipeline, a pipeline should be laid by M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited now renamed as Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd;

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

Now, therefore, In exercise of the powers conferredby 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 here by declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

7620

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

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 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 the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri.J.N.Amin , Competent Authority, M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd , Pipeline Project , Anand Mahal Apartment , Anand Mahal Road, Adajan , Surat Gujarat. 395009 ,

SCHEDULE

District: Surat

State: Gujarat

Tehsil : Olpad

Area to be acquired for ROU .

Survey No./Block No.

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

e-Are

439

1.Mulad( Gyaspur)

440

441

454

455

436

Road

456

434

433

432

430

428

431

[F. No. L-14014/28/2006-G.P. ] S.B MANDAL , Under Sety.

नई दिल्ली , 1 सितम्बर , 2006

सशोधन

का. आ. 3493.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में दहेज - हजीरा - उरान एवं स्पर पाइपलाइन (पनवेल -दाभोल सेक्सन ) द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल (इंडिया) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और , सरकार ने, पेट्रालियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) के अधीन अधिसूचना का.आ. 3570 तारीख 3 अक्टूबर , 2005 द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य सरकार से गेल (इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर श्री के.एन. कशिवले को सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 2062 एवं 2063 दिनांक 18/05/2006 एवं 20/05/2006 क्रमशः द्वारा संलग्न तत्संबंधी अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के लिये जारी की थीं;

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (क) और धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना आवश्यक है , यह निर्देश देती है कि नीचे वर्णित सारणी में विनिर्दिष्ट भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना में से उक्त अनुसूची की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में विनिर्दिष्ट रीति से संशोधन किया जा सकेगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

7621

शुद्धि- पत्र

1. भारत के राजपत्र सं. 21 दिनांक 27/05/2006 के का.आ. सं . 2062 व 2063 दिनांक 18/05/2006 व 20/05/2006 में पृष्ठ सं . 4514 , 4515 , 4516 , 4517 , 4518 , 4520, 4523 एवं 4543 पर.

राजपत्र के अनुसार

सर्वे नं.

गाँव

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्ट. मे)

199

रेपोली

00-19-00

589

लाखपाले

52/ 11ए

जुई- बुद्रुक

52/11वी

51/2ए

00-25-00

51/2बी

00-25-00

51/2सी

51/2डी

00-25-00

44/1

00-24-00

44/2

00-24-00

44/3

00-24-00

44/5

00-24-00

44/6

00-24-00

37/10/1

00-38-00

37/10/2

00-38-00

37/10/3

00-38-00

37/1बी

37/1सी

00-38-00

37/1डी

00-38-00

37/1 ई

00-38-00

37/1 एफ

37/1जी

00-38-00

37/1 एच

पढ़िये

गाँव

सर्वे नं.

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्ट. मे) रेपोली

119

00-19-00

589

लाखपाले

00-22-00

52/11

जुई- बुद्रुक

52/11बी

51/2ए

51/2बी

00-25-00

51/2सी

51/2डी

41/1

41/2

41/3

00-24-00

41/4

41/5

41/6

37/1ए/1

37/10/2

37/1ए/3

37/1बी

37/1सी

00-38-00

37/1डी

37/1ई

37/1 एफ

37/1जी

37/1 एथ 7622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

राजपत्र के अनुसार

सर्वे नं.

गाँव

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] पढ़िये

सर्वे नं .

गाँव

क्षेत्रफल

(हेक्ट. मे)

38/1/1

00-47-00 जुई-बुद्रुक

38/1/2

00-47-00

38/1/3

00-47-00

38/1/4

38/1/5

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्ट. मे) 38/1/1

जुई-बुटुक

38/1/2

38/1/3

00-47-00 38/1/4

38/1/5

00-47-00

38/1/6

00-47-00

1/6/ए

रोहण

1/6/बी

वलंग

5/ 1ए

5/1बी

61/ 1ए

61/1बी

61/1सी

00-15-00

63/1ए

63/1बी

00-15-00 अदिस्ते

135/1

00-19-00

135/2

00-19-00

00-09-00

518ए

टोल-बुद्रुक

518बी

खैरे

7/2/1

7/2/02

7/3/ए

7/3/बी

23/ 1 ए

23/1बी+2

44/1

44/2

00-17-00

43/2ए

43/2

00-17-00 38/1/6

रोहन

1/6/ए

1/6/वी

वलंग

5/1ए

{

61/ 1ए

61/1बी

61/ 1सी

63/1ए

00-15-00 63/1बी

135/1

अदिस्ते

00-19-00 135/2

}

518ए

टोल-बुद्रुक

518बी }

खैरे

7/2/ए 1 {

7/2/02

7/3/ए

7/3/बी

23/ 1 ए

23/1बी+2

44/1

44/2

43/2ए

00-17-00 43/2 7623

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राजपत्र के अनुसार

सर्वे नं.

गाँव

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्ट. मे)

00-12-00

36/7

विन्हे

00-95-00 करंजानी 1342/1 , 1/12, 1/3, 2, 3

सालवे

257

256

पढ़िये

सर्वे नं .

गाँव

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्ट. मे)

36/6

00-12-00 विनहे

करंजनी

00-95-00 1342/1 , 1/2 , 1/3, 2 , 3

357

सालवे

2. भारत के राजपत्र सं . 21 दिनांक 27/05/2006 के का.आ. सं . 2063 दिनांक 20/05/2006 में पृष्ठ सं . 4535 एवं 4546 पर.

राजपत्र के अनुसार

गाँव

सर्वे नं.

तहसील

महाड

686 से 224 तक

टोल बुद्रुक

पढ़िये

गाँव

सर्वे नं.

तहसील

686 से महाड

सापे

224तक [फा. सं . एल-14014/23/2006-जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st September, 2006

Amendment

S. O. 3493.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through Dahej- Hazira - Uran and spur pipelines ( Panvel - Dabhol section ) in the State of Maharashtra , a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India) Limited;

And whereas , the Government authorized Sh . K. N. Kashivale on deputation from the State Government of Maharashtra to GAIL ( India) Limited to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under clause ( a) of section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) vide S.O 3570 dtd . 03-10-2005

And whereas , the Central Govemment in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide notification no . S.O. 2062 and 2063 dated 18/05/2004 and 20/05/2006 respectively issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) for acquisition of right of user in the land specified in the respective corrigendum annexed thereto;

7624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a ) of section 2 and 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 being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest, so to do , hereby directs that the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas specified in the schedule mentioned below may be amended in the manner specified in the corresponding entry in the said schedule .

CORRIGENDUM

1. In the Gazette of India No. 21 dated 27-05-2006 vide S.O. No. 2062 and 2063 dated 18-05-2006 and 20-05-2006 on Page No. 4514, 4515 , 4516, 4517 , 4518 , 4520, 4523 and 4543 .

As per Gazette

Area ( in Hect. )

Survey No.

Village

199

00-19-00 Repoli

589

Lakhapale

52/ 11A

Jui -Budruk

Be read as

Village Survey No. Area ( in Hect. )

119

00-19-00 Repoli

589

00-22-00 Lakhapale

52/ 11A

Jui -Budruk

52/ 11B

51 /2A

00-25-00

51/2B

51/2C

00-25-00

51/2D

00-25-00

44/1

00-24-00

44/2

44/3

00-24-00

44/5

00-24-00

44/6

00-24-00

37/1A/ 1

00-38-00

37/ 1A/2

00-38-00

37/1A/3

37/1B

00-38-00

37/1C

00-38-00

37/1D

00-38-00

37/ 1E

37/1F

00-38-00

37/1G

00-38-00

37/ 1H

}

52/11B

51/2A

51/2B

00-25-00 51/2C }

51/2D

41/1

41/2

41/3

00-24-00

41/4

41/5

41/6

37/ 1A/ 1

37/1A/2

37/ 1A/ 3

37/1B

37/ 1C

00-38-00 37/1D

37/ 1E

37/1F

37/1G

37/ 1H भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006 / भाद्रपद 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

As per Gazette

Area (in Hect.)

Survey No.

Village

00-47-00

38/1/1

7625 Beread as

Village Survey No. Area ( in Hect .) 38/1/1

Jui-Budruk

Jui -Budruk

00-47-00

38/1/2

00-47-00

38/1/3

00-47-00

38/1/4

00-47-00

38/1/5

00-47-00

38/1/6

1/6/A

Rohan

1/6/B

5/ 1A

Walang

5/1B

61/ 1A

61/ 1B

61/ 1C

00-15-00

63/1A

00-15-00

63/1B

00-19-00

135/1

Adiste

00-19-00

135/2

38/1/2

38/1/3

00-47-00 38/1/4

38/1/5

38/1/6

1/6/A

Rohan

1/6/B

5/1A

Walang

5/1B

61/ 1A

61/1B

61/1C

63/1A

00-15-00 63/1B

135/1

Adiste

00-19-00

135/2

518A

Tol Budruk

518A

TolBudruk

518B

7/2/A1

Khaire

7/2/A2

7/3 /A

7/3 /B

23/ 1A

23/ 1B+2

44/1

44/2

00-17-00

43/2A

00-17-00

43/2

2538 G1/06-16

518B }

Khaire

7/2/A1

7 /2/A2

7/3 /A

7/3/B

23/ 1A

23/1B+ 2

44/1

44/2

43/2A

00-17-00

43/2 7626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRAPADA 11 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ]

Be read as

As per Gazette

Village

Survey No. Area (in Hect. )

Survey No. Area (in Hect.) Village

36/7

36/6

Vinhe

00-12-00

Vinhe

00-12-00

00-95-00

00-95-00 1342/ A1 , 1/12 ,

Karanjani

1/3,2,3

1342/A1 , 1/2 , 1/3,2,3

257

357

Salave

256

2. In the Gazette of India No. 21 dated 27-05-2006 vide S.O. No. 2063 dated 20-05-2006 on Page No. 4535 and 4546 .

Be read as

As per Gazette

Tehsil

Village Survey No.

Tehsil

Survey No.

Village

From 686

Mahad

From 686

Mahad

Sape

to224

TollBudruk

to 224

[F. No. L -14014/23/2006-G.P. ]

S.B MANDAL , Under Secy.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3494.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटी आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/36/2003- आई आर( विविध ) ]

7627

भारत का राजपल : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

The workmen have filed claim statement . In the claim statement it is stated that the Ministry of Labour , Government of India, vide its order No.L- 11012/36/2003 -IR(M) dated 20-02-2004 referred the industrial dispute by framing the following terms of reference for compulsory adjudication:

"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation ofShri Joginder Singh and 28 others (List enclosed) with the management of Airport Aurthonty of India, New Delhi on the basis of Ministry of Labour Notification No.1114(E), dated 16-11-1999 is justified? Ifyes,to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date ."

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi, the 1st August, 2006

S.O. 3494.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/2004) of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court - II , New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on1-8-2006.

That the petitioner workmen are members of the Airport Employees Union (Regd. ) . The Union has been espousing the cause of the workmen for regularisation of theirservices . The list of the workmen , the date of joining, the designations , the monthly wages of the workmen are listedand placed as Annexure P- 1 of this petition .

That theAirport Authority of India is the principal employer . The appropriate Government in relation to AirportAuthority of India is the Central Government.

[No. L-11012/36/2003- IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, UnderSecy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT - IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 31/2004

PresidingOfficer : R. N. Rai .

In the Matter of :-

Shri Joginder Singh & 27 others , C/o.Airport Employees Union, 3, V.P. House , Rafi Marg, New Delhi

Versus

TheAssistant General Manager (P) , IGIAirport Authority of India, Terminal- 11, NewDelhi

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/36/ 2003 - IR(M), Central Government dated 20-02-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation ofShri Joginder Singh and 28 others (List enclosed) with the management of Airport Authority of India, New Delhi on the basis of Ministry of Labour Notification No.1114(E), dated 16-11-1999 isjustified? Ifyes,to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date . "

That M/ s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. , 208 , Meghdoot Building, 94, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 19 supplied the petitioner workmen with the aid of one M/s . A.K. Shaywelding works , 3344/5 , Gali Pipal Mahadevi , Hauz Khas, Delhi - 6. The former is described as contractor and the later is described as sub-contractor hereinafter. The contract was between M/s . Kriloskar Pneumatic Company Limited, Contractor and M/s . Airport Authority of India to supply the petitioner workmen . There was no role assignable to sub-contractor. The contractor has been continuously signing the agreements with the Airport Authority of India for supply of manpower for the operation and maintenance of A.C. Plant at IGI Airport. That even though the Airport Authority of India has been taking workdirectly from the workmen and supervising their work, itcreated a sham contract with the contractor . The contractor further reached to agreement with various agencies at different periods of time to obtain manpower and created a sub-contractor and put the obligation on the sub -contractor to supply workmen to the Airport Authority of India. The layer after layer of contractual relationships are formulated and thick spider web is woven to create artificial employer employee relationship between the sub-contractor and the petitioner workmen with the motive to deny the employer and employee relationship between Airport Authority of India and the petitioner workmen and also deny the regularisation of services of the petitioner workmen with AirportAuthority of India. In fact the petitioner workmen have beenworking from the date of their initial joining with theAirport Authority of India under the daily supervision of the permanent officials of Airport Authority of India. Thepetitioneritioner workmen have been working continuously without anybreak irrespective of change of sub -contractor atdifferent periods and some of the workmen have been working for more than a decade .

That the petitioner workmen even though working directly under supervision of the officers of Airport 7528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

Authority of India, have been shown as contract labour. The petitioner workmen joined the establishment of Airport Authority of India on various dates as mentioned in Annexure P -1 of this petition as A.C. Plant supervisors , mechanics , electricians , operators and helpers . Irrespective ofthe change of sub-contractor , the workmen continued in their employment . The petitioner workmen passed the courses prescribed for the posts , which they have holding to maintain and operate the A.C. Plant. The A.C. Plant is installed to provide A.C. facilities in the building which is used by the Airport Authority of India for its day to day functioning.

All the petitioner workmen have been continuously working without any break from the date of their joining and the nature of job is day to day maintenance and operation of air conditioning plant of Airport Authority of India installed at ICI Airport in the Airport Authority of India Complex at Rangpuri , New Delhi . The petitioner workmen have the duty hours from 8.30 am to 5.00 pm. Sunday is the weekly off. On the public holidays and gazetted holidays , the building is remained closed as those being the holidays of the Airport Authority of India and the workmen also get holidays without pay.

The jobs of the petitioner workman include to maintain A.C. Plant installed in Airport Authority of India building . During the maintenance the workmen have to read the various meters ofA.C. Plant every hour and record the same on the log book. If there is any deviation appears after meter reading the fault has to be found out immediately and the same has to be set right . If there is any fault, which requires the replacement of parts the required parts may be requisitioned by the petitioner workers by applyingto J.E. & A.E. of the Airport Authority of India, who sit in the main building of the Airport Authority of India .After installing the new parts and rectifying the faults of A/ C Plantby the workmen the old and defective parts will be returned to J.E. and A.E. By this description , it can be inferred that the job is permanent and perennial in nature and the job is supervised by the officials of Airport Authority of Iridia. The A.C. Plant operates throughout theyear.

That the petitioner workmen have been paid the minimum wages as notified by the Govt . of NCT of Delhi from time to time . ESI and PF deductions are made . The petitioner workmen are some times asked to do over time , but they are paid only single rate wages .

That the Contract Labour Board ( Central) , a statutory body studied the conditions of the contract labour working in operations of A.C. Plant and after hearing all the concerned parties came to conclusion that contract labour system has to be abolished in the category of A.C. Plant in the establishment of Airport Authority of India. While coming to this decision , the Contract Labour (Board) considered all the stipulated conditions under Section 10(2) ofthe Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Finally, the Contract Labour Board ( C) recommended the abolition of contract labour system in the category ofA.C. Plant maintenance and operation in the establishment of AirportAuthority of India and sent the recommendations to the Central Government. The Central Government, by

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] virtue of powers vested with it under Section 10(1 ) of Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 after due considerations came to conclusion and abolished the contract labour system in the category of A.C. Piant operations in the establishment of Airport Authority of India and the same has been published in Gazettee vide No. S.O.1114(E), dated 16th November, 1999. BY virtue of this notification , the contract labour system in the category ofA.C. Plant operation in the establishment of Airport Authority of India has been prohibited .

That one more similar A.C. Plant is being operated by the Airport Authority of India . In that near about 50 workmen have been working to operate the A.C. Plant. All these workmen are permanent employees and they are enjoying the scale of pay, which is near about Rs.15, 000/- per month and also they have been enjoying all other amenities including security ofjob . The nature of duties of these permanent employees and the petitioner workmen is the same .

That the job rendered by the petitioner workmen is permanent and perennial in nature . It is necessary for the industry . Hence, the petitioner workmen are entitled to regularisation of their services .

The union , i.e. Airport Employees Union (Regd. ) , in itsworking committee meeting dated 09-10-2001 decided to espouse the industrial dispute regarding regularisation ofthe services of the petitioner workmen .

The respondent/management has filed written statement. In the written statement it is stated that in the instant case , the Central A.C. system was installed by M/s. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited who was originally equipment manufacturer , in the premises of the respondent/management. During the period of guarantee as well as after the period of guarantee the said equipment was maintained by the manufacturer i.e. M/s , Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited as per the terms and conditions of annual maintenance contract entered by and between the respondent/management and the manufacturer i.e. M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited.

That it is further submitted that the Contract of maintenance was on a principal - to - principal basis and it was the responsibility and liability of the manufacturer/ contractor i.e. M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. to execute the work awarded to them by the respondent/management. In order to discharge its contractural obligation for maintenance of A.C. Plant and equipments , the manufacturer has been deploying manpower on the site . The said manpower was engaged by the manufacturers and they were working under the administrative control and supervision of the manufacturer . The respondent/ management was not entitled to exercise any supervision orcontrol over the manpower deployed by the manufacturer.

The respondent/management most respectfully submits that there was no employer - employee relation between the petitioners/workmen and respondent/ management . The petitioners/workmen were the employees ofM/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. and deployed by them in the premises of respondent/management for rendering maintenance services as per terms and conditions [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

of annual maintenance contract. The matter of appointment, service condition and termination of the workman is/was controlled and supervised solely by the manufacturer/ contractor, who was their employer for all purposes and intents . It is further submitted that the contract was on a principal to principal basis and it was the responsibility and liability of the contractor i.e. M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. to execute the work awarded to them by the respondent/management .

That on 01-04-2004 a fresh contract for operation and maintenance of Central Air-conditioning plant was awarded to M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. for the period of01-04-2004 to 31-03-2005 . However, M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited informed the respondent/ management only on 26-04-2004 that they will not be above toprovide their services for the operation and maintenance ofcentral air -conditioning system.

That since M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited has withdrawn their services on their own the respondent/ management has explored all possibilities by holding discussion and meetings with representative of the M/s. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. limited to continue the work . But no fruitful results came out . At last the respondent/ management has requested to M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited to carry out the work for this summer season, as the respondent/management is in process to replace the existing AC Plant after that no backup support will be needed for these equipments. But M/s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co.Limited refused to continue . The special situation arose due to above circumstances , then the appointed and authorised sub - contractor of M/ s . Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Limited i.e. M/s . Akshay Welding has been asked to carry out the operation and maintenance for three months by awarding a separate new contract till the time respondent/ management made alternative arrangements.

That it was decided by the respondent/management to replace the existing chilling units and cooling towers with the most modem energy efficient micro -processor based machinery and equipments . Accordingly , tenders were invited for replacement of machines and equipments as mentioned above. The respondent/management thus, awarded the contract for replacement of central A.C. Plant with most modern micro - processed based machinery to M/ s , Blue Star Limited through a call of open tender . Inthis contract the all inclusive operation and maintenance of high side equipment is also given for 7 years i.e. one year pre guarantee period after provisional take over of one year during defect liability period from the date of completion and operation inclusive maintenance after warranty period is over for 5 years , commencing fromthe expiry of defect liability period as respondent/management do not have the expertise and technical know now of these equipments . The M/s . Blue Star Limited has already started the replacement of existing M/ s . KPC Limited made AC Plants . The new plant is likely to be commissioned by February , 2005. M/s. Blue Star Limited has imported these machinery/equipment from USA and they will carry out the operation and maintenance of these equipments through their own technical personnel .

7629

भारत का राजपन्न : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

That in the meanwhile a fresh tender for six months was invited with reduced scope of work. Accordingly, the aforesaid work was awarded to M/s . Dual Engineers by the respondent/management for the period 01-07-2004 to 31-12-2004 andvide letter dated 25-06-2004, the respondent/ management conveyed its acceptance to the offer of M/s: Dual Engineers . The said contract had to be extended till 23-01-2005 because of the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 12-10-2004 whereby this Hon'ble Tribunal directed the answering respondent that the petitioner/workmen will not been removed . The new machinery will become operative as soon as the winter season is over .

That it is the respectful submissions of the respondent/management that the contract executed with M/s. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. was on a principal to principal basis and was neither sham nor camouflage . The M/s. KPC Limited is a separate entity independent ofthe respondent/management and had the requisite work force and specialisation in executing the subject matter .

That the respondent/management respectfullysubmits that the petitioners/workmen were never the employees of therespondent/management i.e. Airport Authority of India. Admittedly, they were all the employees of the Contractors . The matter of appointment , service conditions , and termination of the services of petitioners/workmen was controlled and supervised by the contractor only . As per the contract, the contract was liable to pay remuneration, Insurance contributions etc. to the petitioners/workmen andthe contractor alone was responsible for the same. It is further evident from the bonus-sheet for the period of 2003-04and No Dues Claim Certificate that the petitioners/ workmen were the employees of authorised sub contractor ofM/s . KPC Limited i.e. M/s . Akshay Welding and are now employed by M/s . Dual Engineers. And thereafter , M/s. Dual Engineers is exercising control and supervision over the work of the petitioners/workmen, which is further evident fromthe attendance sheet maintained by M/s . Dual Engineers.

That the respondent/management respectfully submits that the petitioners/workmen were the employees ofthe contractor and not of the respondent/management . It is further submitted that the placement, appointment, supervision and payment of wages etc. were all the responsibility of the contractor which is evident from the terms and conditions of the contract : The contract between the respondent/management and the contractors is on a principal to principal basis and it is the responsibility of the contractor to provide necessary supervision and control over its employees.

That Ministry of Labour vide its notification No.1114( E) dated 16-11-1999 , inter - alia , prohibited employment of contract labour in the jobs, operations or 、 processes specified in the schedule to the aforesaid notification in the establishment of the respondent/ management.

That it is most respectfully submitted by the respondent/management that the case of the respondent/ management falls within the exception carved out in the 7630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ]

the exception carved out in the notification No. 1114(E) dated 16-11-1999. It is most respectfully submitted that the said notification was not applicable to the case of the respondent/management .

notification No.114(E) dated 16-11-1999, whereby the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970were made applicable to certain organisations in respect of certain activities specified therein. It is further submitted that the job of maintenance and operation of air conditioning plant was undertaken by the manufacturer/ original supplier as part of supply arrangements. It is further submitted that the contract between the respondent/ management and the manufacturer/contractor was an annual maintenance contract therefore , the said notification was not applicable to the case of the respondent/ management .

That the impugned terms of reference dated 20-02-2004 has been made mechanically and without application of mind and is liable to be set aside . The appropriate government further failed to appreciate that the notification dated 16-11-1999 , having been quashed/ set aside in the writ proceedings , is no longer in existence at the time of issuing the reference order. Thus , the reference based on the same is liable to be set aside outrightly.

That even otherwise , the said notification was quashedby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 22-11-2001 . That the aforesaid order dated 22-11-2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi was challengedby the Airport Employees Federation of India bywayof filing an LPA bearing No. 530/2002.

The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid appeal vide its order dated 24-07-2002.

That there is no employer -employee relationship between the petitioner/workmen and the respondent/ management. The petitioners/ workmen have been the employees of the contractor who are having a contract with the respondent/management on principal to principal basis. It is an admitted position that the PF and ESI of the petitioners/workmen have been deducted and deposited by their employer and not by the respondent/management.

That the aforesaid order dated 24-07-2002passedby the Hon'ble Division Bench was challenged by one Shri S. Shivaraman by way of filing an SLP bearing No. 956/ 2003.TheHon'bleDivision Bench was pleased to dismiss the aforesaid SLP vide its order dated 13-01-2003.

That in view of the above , it is appearing that at the time of issuance of the reference order, no notification existed in the eyes of law and the reference order has been made mechanically and without application of mind. As such the reference order made by the Central Government is bad in law and liable to be quashed outrightly.

That however, despite being aware of the above factual and legal position , petitioners/workmen raised an alleged industrial dispute against the respondent/ management and consequent upon failure report submitted bytheConciliation Officer, the following terms of reference was made by the Central Government for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal :

the Thatit is submitted that the present claim as filed by petitioners/workmen is untenable , as no relationship of Employer and Employees ever existed between the petitioners/workmen and the respondent/management . The petitioners/workmen continue to be the employees of the contractor and thus if any claims are to be preferred, they have to be preferred only against the contractor. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners/workmen have been appointed by the contractor , who was responsible for selecting his employees as per his own requirement. Further it was only the responsibility of the contractor to supervise and to take disciplinary action in case of any breach/misconduct, if any , committed by its employees. It was the responsibility of the contractor to organize and regulate its respective employees/ claimants . The contractor was responsible for the payment of remuneration to its respective employees . Further uniform of the employees , insurance policy, provisions related to EPF , ESI payment andbonus are all the responsibility of the contractor under the contract. It is pertinent to mention that in view of the aforesaid, the contractor was the ultimate authority in so far as the question of appointment , dismissal , new appointment, working of the employees/claimants in the present case were concerned .

"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation ofShri Joginder Singh and 28 others (List enclosed) with the management of Airport Authority of India, New Delhi on the basis of Ministry of Labour Notification No.1114(E) dated 16-11-1999 is justified? Ifyes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date ."

That the reference has been made without impleading the contractors who are necessary parties to the alleged industrial dispute and the aforesaid dispute cannot be adjudicated without impleading the employers of the petitioners/workmen.

Thatthe present reference is bad in law for the non- joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be struck down by this Hon'ble Tribunal as the contractor namely M/ s . KPC Limited, M/s . Akshay Welding Works and M/s . Dual Engineers have not been arrayed as party. The present reference has erroneously been made qua AirportAuthority of India and not qua the contractor who are both the proper and necessary party.

Inview ofthe aforesaid facts and circumstances it is most respectfully submitted that there is no claim for any relief to the petitioners against the answering respondent fortheir becomingthe employees of answering respondent for their regularisation and/or continuity of their services from answering respondent.

That the petitioners/ workmen are guilty of suppression ofmaterial facts and have tried to obtain unjust enrichment at the cost of M/s . Airport Authority of India bymisrepresentation . The present reference is liable tobe struck down on this ground along in as much as the petitioners/workmen have not approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands.

Thatthe appropriate government failed to appreciate that the case of the respondent/management falls within 7631

भारत का राजपत्न: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

That the cause of the petitioners/workmen has not been espoused by any trade union which is registered under the Trade Union Act nor by any substantial number ofworkmen. Hence, the order of reference is liable to be quashed as no industrial dispute exists between the parties.

That the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdictionto entertainthe present claim as the petitioners/workmen are not covered under any of the provision of the ID Act, hence the claim statement is liable to be rejected and reference order be declared as void and null .

Theunionhas filed rejoinder. In rejoinder the union has reiterated the averments of claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

TheUnion on behalf of the workman was directed to fileaffidavitby03-10-2005 but the union has not filed ittill 20-07-2006. Evidence was closed and management was heard. The Union has failed to file affidavit in support of the claim statement. The Union has failed to prove its claim.

Thereference is replied thus:-

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, "SHRAM SANDAN"

III MAIN, III CROSS, II PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE- 560022 Dated: 19th July, 2006

PRESENT

SHRI A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer C. R. No. 53/1998

IPARTY

IIPARTY

Shri Ananda Theertha, TheGeneral Manager,

Canara Bank Circle Office, 86-M.G. Road, Bangalore560001 S/o K.B. Krishana Murthy, DoorNo. 59, Indiranagar , Bidadi Taluk, Ramnagar-562109

APPEARANCES

1stParty

Shri VS Naik, Advocate.

2nd Party

The demand ofthe union for regularisation of Shri Joginder Singh and 28 others (List enclosed) with the management ofAirport Authority of India, New Delhi on the basis ofMinistry of Labour Notification No.1114(E) dated 16-11-1999 is not justified. The workmen applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer Date:25-07-2006..

नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ.3495.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विकार में केन्द्रीय सरकार अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/165/1997- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd August, 2006 S.O. 3495.- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank, and theirworkman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-8-2006.

[No. L- 12012/165/1997 - IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

Shri T. R. K. Prasad , Advocate.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredbyclause (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorder.No. L- 12012/165/97- IR (B- II) dated 4th June , 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ananda Theertha is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief theworkman is entitled?"

2.The case of the first party workman , as made out in the Claim Statement, relevant for the purpose is that he was appointed as a Temporary Sub Staff w.e.f. 4-10-1982 in theBidadi branch of the management bank and worked up till 1989 and thereafter he was engaged as a Coolie and worked as such till he was refused employment w.e.f.1-1- 1992; that he worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days in each calendar year but his services were terminated from 1-1-1992 without valid grounds . He raised the dispute before the ALC( C) , Bangalore and the conciliation proceedings ended in failure and the Labour Ministry refused to make reference to this tribunal on the ground that dispute was belated for a period of about 10 years. He approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of writ petition and under the orders of the High Court the present reference came to be made to this tribunal . Therefore, he contended that he worked as a daily wager during the aforesaid period continuously and was also responsible for mobilizing the deposits during the period 7632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ) January 1984 to August 1984 as evident from the letter dated 17-5-1985 addressed by the Divisional Manger to the Senior Manager of Bidadi branch and also the letter dated 31-7-1991 addressed by the Manager to the Divisional Manger , Bangalore . Therefore , he submitted that the action of the management in terminating his service was a clear case of retrenchment as defined under section 2(oo) of the ID Act and since there was no compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act it amounts to illegal termination liable to be set aside by this tribunal .

daily wage workers and others and also the register at EX. M3 showing the actual working days and the daily wages paid to the Temporary employees during the year 1989 to 4th July 1992. The register at EX. M2 is from 1982 to 1994 . Coming to the above said letter marked at EX. M5 he stated that the first party did not work for a period of 276 days in the year 1984 and it is the letter created by the first party bypasting a chit in the name of Sr. Manager upon his own namewritten on the top of that said letter . He then referred to the representations of the first party as per EX. M4 & EX. M5. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that the first party worked continuously from 1980 to 1992 and then stated that he worked from 1980 to 1987 and then for the years 1990 and 1991 and did not work at all in the year 1992. When was confronted with the letter at EX . M5 he stated that it is not a genuine letter and it is concocted by the first party and that no action has been taken on EX. M5 against the first party.

5. The first party filed his affidavit by way of examination chief once again reiterating the fact that he worked under the management right from the year 1982 till the year 1992, initially, working as a sub staff then working as a coolie and was also responsible for mobilizing the deposits duringthe year 1984 and that his services have been terminated by the management without following the legal procedure . In his cross examination the first party in no uncertain words admitted that he worked for 78 days in the year 1982, 84 days in the year 1983 , 88 days in the year 1984 , 85 days in the year 1985, 52 days in the year 1986, 81 days in the year 1987. He worked for 27 days in the year 1990 and 4 days in the year 1991 but denied the suggestion that he worked for the aforesaid periods intermittently and not continuously and that he did not work during the years 1988 & 1989 at all . He admitted that he has been paid bonus for the period shown in the bonus register at Ex . M2 and also has been paid wages as per Ex . M3 register for the days he worked. However , he denied the suggestion that except for the period the bonus was paid as per Ex. M2, he has not worked beyond that period .

3. The management by its counter statement not disputing the fact that the first party worked with the bank inthe beginning as a daily wager and then as a Coolie on dailywage basis during period from 1982 till 1991 , however, contended that he worked for 78 days in the year 1982 , 84 days in the year 1983 , 88 days in the year 1984, 85 days in the year 1985 , 52 days in the year 1986, 81 days in the year 1987 , 27 days in the year 1990 and 4 days in the year 1991 . The management contended that in no calendar year the first party worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more and that he was not entitled to be empanelled as adaily wager in not fulfilling norms for employment as per the prescribed rules and procedures of the bank . He is also not entitled to be considered for the purpose of permanent post of sub staff for the reason that for the appointment of sub staff, the bank is required to follow theprescribed procedure and the service conditions which are popularly known as Award Staff governed by Shastry Award , Desai Award and Bipartite Settlement entered into between the unions from time to time . Therefore , the management contended that in discontinuing the services of the first party in the month of December 1991 , there being no work available to the first party on temporary basis, the action of the management does not amount to retrenchment or illegal termination attracting the provisions ofSection 2(oo) read with Section 25F of the ID Act . As far as letter dated 3-1-1985 mentioning the fact that the first partyworked for a period of 276 days during the year 1984 which has been very much relied upon by the first partyto show that he has worked for a period of more than 240 days in the said period . The management contended that it is letter fabricated by the first party himself. In the result the management requested this tribunal to dismiss the reference .

6.Learned counsel for the management Shri TRK Prasad vehemently argued that first of all it is not a case of termination of the services of the first party by the management so as to establish that the management was justified or not justified in terminating his services. He submitted that in the beginning for few months as per Ex . M1 first party was appointed as a sub staff and after the expiry of the period shown in the said appointment order, his services are being engaged by the management bank as a Coolie on daily wage basis and that during the period from 1982 to 1991 in no calendar year the first party worked for a period of 240 days and more so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(oo ) read with Section 25F of the 10Act . He contended that the letter at Ex . M5 relied uponby the first party showing that he worked for a period of276 days in the year 1984, first of all will not help the 4. During the course of trial , the management examined MW1 , Sr. Branch Manager, Bidadi branch giving the evidence based on records and his statement in examination chief relevant for the purpose is that the first party never worked for 240 days and more during any calendar year and he also deposed as to actual working days of the first party during the years 1982 to 1991. Не stated that appointment of the first party as a sub staff as per EX . M1 was for a specific period from 4-10-1982 to 18-10-1982 . He then referred to the register at EX. M2 maintained for the purpose of payment of Bonus to the 7633

भारत का राजपन : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

case of the first party as the first party in order to attract the aforesaid provisions of law in the first instance has to provethat he worked for a period of 240 days and more during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding his alleged termination of the services . Even otherwise the letter at Ex. M5 is a fabricated letter prepared by the first party himself addressed in the name of Dy . General Manager purporting to have been written by the Sr. Branch Manager , Canara Bank, Bidadi Branch . He got a chit typed in the name of Sr. Manager, Canara Bank and pasted it over his own name written on the said letter and therefore , it will not help the case of the first party to substantiate his case. He also argued about the procedure prescribed for the purpose of appointment of sub staff or listing the name of temporary sub staff in the panel prepared by the bank and for the purpose of appointment of temporary peon on permanent basis. He argued that first party is neither entitled to empanel as a daily wager nor as a permanent employee, his services being utilized by the bank temporarily for intermittent period as a Coolie on daily wage basis .

7. Whereas, learned counsel for the first party Shri Ramesh for Shri V.S. Naik with an equal vehemence contended that the first party must succeed in the case on the basis of the aforesaid letter at Ex . M5 itself and he termed the said document as a trump card supporting the case of the first party. He also referred to the letter at Ex. M4 given by the first party on 23-1-1989 wherein he requested the bank to provide him a job as a sub staff. He then referred to the letter at Ex . M6 once again by the first party to get his name empanelled in daily wages panel on 3-1-1996.

8. After having gone through the records I do not find much substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. The facts very much admitted by the first party himself in his cross- examination would make it abundantly clear that in no calendar year between 1982 to 1992 he worked continuously for a period of240 days and more . In the first part of his cross - examination as noted above , in very clear terms he admitted that he worked for 78 days in the year 1982, 84 days in the year 1983 , 88 days in the year 1984, 85 days in the year 1985, 52 days in the year 1986, 81 days in the year 1987 , 27 days in the year 1990 and 4 days in the year 1991. Although the first party also contended that in the years 1988 and 1989 also he worked with the management bank but there is absolutely no record coming forth on his part to speak to the said fact . The above said statement of first party made by way of admission in his cross-examination also gets very much support from the two registers produced by the management namely the bonus register and the register maintained for the purpose of payment ofwages to the temporary employees . The Bonus register at Ex. M2 would very much support the contention of the management that the first party worked during the above said period for the days he had spoken to in his statement in cross -examination as per the case of the

management made out in the Counter Statement as well as in the statement of MW1 . Similarly, the management took support ofthe register at Ex. M3 to show that for whatever periodthe first party worked, he has been paid wages as per the entries made in the said register . On going through the entries made inthe bonus register as well as in the register maintained for the payment ofwages, it is very much evident that the first worked with the management either as a daily wager or as a temporary coolie on daily wage basis for the period he has spoken to and admitted in his aforesaid statement in cross -examination . As argued for the first party himselfhistrump card is the letter at EX.M5 said to have been written by Sr. Manager to Dy. General Manger wherein it is mentioned that the first party worked for a periodof276 days from 1-1-1984 to 31-12-1984. On going through the said letter 1 find substance in the arguments advance for the management that this letter in fact initially wasaddressedby the first party himself to the Dy. General Manager and it is over and above his name a typed chit in the name of Sr. Manager was pasted so as to make it appear that it was sent by the Sr. Manager to the Dy . General Manager. That apart, the fact said to have been mentioned in the said letter saying that the first party worked for 276 days in the year gets belied and negatived in the very statement of the first party in his cross- examination , wherein in unequivocal words he admitted that during the year 1984 he worked for 88 days . This statement as noted above , also has been very much corroborated by the management evidence produced by way the aforesaid two registers , one meant for payment of bonus and another meant for payment of daily wages to the temporary workers . The fact that he worked for 276 days in the year 1984 also does not get support from his own letter dated 23-1-1989 wherein he gave details of working days as a daily wager during the years 1984 to 1988. He did not disclose the number of days he worked with the bank during the years 1983 to 1988 though he has disclosed the number of days he worked for the period from 1980 to 1983. Therefore, from the statement of MW1 who has given the number of days during the period 1980 to 1991 and not disputed by the first party in his cross - examination, from the admissions of first party himself in his cross- examination as noted above , and from thedocuments produced by the management referred to supra , it gets very much clear that the first party did not work with the management bank continuously for a period of 240 days and more in any of the calendar year during the period from 1980 to 1991 or 1992. It is also not in dispute that when his services were terminated in the month of December 1991 i.e. w.e.f. 1-1-1992 the working days on which he worked with the management bank in 1991 were hardly four days. During the year 1990 as noted above, he worked hardly for 27 days . Therefore , undisputedly the first party did not work for a period of 240 days and more continuously during the block period of four months in the year 1991 immediately before his services were terminated by the 2538 GI/ 06-17 7634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

daily wagers panel could make it abundantly clear that his point of time and that he continued to work with the bank management by way of refusal of work to him on daily wage basis. The fact that he worked as a sub staff initially under the appointment letter at Ex. M1 undisputedly for a specific period from 4-10-1982 to 18-10-1982 will notbe coming to the rescue of the first party to claim himself to be a sub staff of bank as undisputedly subsequent to the above said period in his own words he had been working with the bank as a Coolie on daily wage basis. The very fact that he made a representation dated 3-1-1996 as per Ex. M6 making a request for inclusion of his name in the name also did not appear in the daily wages panel at any only as a Coolie on daily wage basis , that too , for the period mentioned as per his own admissions made in cross- examination . Therefore , having regard to the fact undisputed that the first party did not work for a period of 240 days and more during any block period of 12 months continuously, provisions of Section 2( 00) read with Section 25F of the ID Act are not at all attracted in this case . In the result it cannot be said that it was a case of retrenchment or illegal termination and that the management was not justified in terminating his Services without the compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act . However , having regard to the undisputed fact that initially the first party was appointed as a sub staff as per Ex . M1 and for a length of period he worked under the management as a daily wager, it appears to me that ends of justice will be met if the management is called upon to enlist the name of the first party in the daily wagers panel maintained by it andto provide him the work on daily wage basis as and when it is available along with the other daily wagers empanelled . Hence the following award :

AWARD

The referemce stands dismissed. The management ishowever asked to empanel the name of the first party in the panel of daily wagers and provide him work on daily wage basis subject to availability of the work along with other daily wagers shown in the said panel. No cost.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 19th July 2006)

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3496.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियन्टल बैंक आफ कामर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली नं. - 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 157/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/ 12/1999- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

[PART HSBC. 3 ( ii)] NewDelhi , the 2nd August, 2006

S.O. 3496.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 157/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-New Delhi No. II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Branch Manager, OBC Bajpur and their workman, which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 2-8-2006.

[No. L- 12012/12/1999 - IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 157/1999 PresidingOfficer : R. N. RAI.

In the matter of :- Shri Dharamveer , S/o. Shri Bankey Lal , Vill: Kajiapura (Rampur) , Post: Sheesh Garh , Distt: Bareilly(UP).

VERSUS

1. The Dy. General Manager , Oriental Bank of Commerce , Bazpur,

Udham Singh Nagar (UP).

2. The Dy. General Manager , Oriental Bank of Commerce, 28/1 , Nawal Kishore Marg, Hazratganj , Lucknow(UP) .

3. The Chairman/Managing Director, Oriental Bank of Commerce , Head Office: Harsh Bhawan , E- Block , Connaught Place, NewDelhi -110001.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/12/ 99/1R(B - II ) Central Government Dt. 14/19-05-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank ofCommerce in terminating the services of Shri Dharam Veer, Ex. Temporary Peon-cum-Messenger w.e.f. 25-12-1997 is just, fair and legal ? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from what date " Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the workman was recruited/appointed as a Class - IV employee on 25-03-1996 by the then Branch Manager in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bazpur , District Udham Singh Nagar. He worked and discharged his duties with utmost responsibility and dignity to the satisfaction of all his superiorofficers.

7635 भारत का राजपत्न : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

rejected. It is stated that as per the scheme framed in the Government guidelines and as laid down in the BPS dated 19-10-1966 the bank has a right to appoint temporary employee for limited period of work which is of essentially temporary in nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with the temporary increase ofworkof permanent nature . The claimant might be one of such employee.

That the said workman worked continuously for total 635 days i.e. 25-12-1997 and was also paid his salary up to the month of November 1997. Thereafter his service was orallyterminated which is against the provisions of Labour Laws in as much as neither he was paid one month's salary nor one month's notice prior to termination of his services. Further he was also not paid salary for the month of December , 1997.The workman requested/prayed the Branch Manager to reinstate him on the said post on several occasions .

Itis stated that the claimant has not worked with the management. It is stated that the management -bank has its own recruitment policy and guidelines which cannot be overlooked. It is further stated that the management is a public sector bank and has to act in accordance with the provision of the Constitution . The provision of retrenchment are not applicable in the case of the claimant as his engagement was purely on causal basis .

That as submitted earlier the termination of workman is in total contravention of the provisions of IDAct, 1947, as the workman has completed more than 240 days of continuous service. It is wholly illegal and null and void as such the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service of the bank with all consequential benefits as he has no other source of income .

There is no violation of section 25 H of the ID Act , 1947 and there is no discrimination which has been caused by the bank to the claimant . It is wrong and denied that the respondents have employed Shri Deepak Kumar in place of the claimant .

That the workman is also filing the list of all relevant documents, list of reliance as well as list of witnesses in order to prove his claim that he has infact served in bank for635 days and also got the salary up to November 1997 .

The workman - applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

That after removal of the said workman the Bank has employed one Shri Deepak Kumar, son of Shri Shiv Charan Singh as a Class -IV employee in place of the said workman. Therefore, such action of the bank is also in violation of provision of section 25 H of the ID Act, 1947 .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that there never existed employee- employer relationship between the claimant and theansweringmanagement and hence the reference is liable to be rejected on this ground alone . The applicant has misrepresented the facts before the court stating therein that he was a regular employee of the management bank whereas the applicant was not in the employment of the management bank and no appointment letter or termination letter was ever issued to him by the management, hence the present reference is liable to be rejected .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that heworked continuously for a total period of 635 days till 25-12-1997. He was engaged as Class- IV employee on 25-3-1996. The management has terminated the services of the workman against the provision of Labour Laws. He has not been paid one month's salary in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation. He has not been paid salary for the month ofDecember 1997 though he has completed more than 240 days of continuous service.

It is wrong and denied that the clalmant was appointed as Class- IV employee on 25-3-1996 as has been made out in the claim statement . It is further stated that the management bank is a nationalised bank and the procedure for recruitment of subordinate staff has to be routed through Employment Exchanges against the indent placed by the bank.

It iswrong and emphatically denied that the workman was inthe employment of the bank from 25-12-1997 or that heworked for a period of 635 days with the management bank as its employee. Since the claimant was never in the employment of the bank, the contention on his behalf that hewas orally terminated from the bank is wrong and hence vehemently denied. It is stated that the claimant be put to strict proof ofhis employment with the management bank.

Itwas further submitted that he was serving the bank as office Peon. The workman has filed photocopy of his attendance from B-52 to B - 69 . The attendance has been certified by Mr. Mohan . The workman has filed photocopies of letter dated 27-3-1997 and 29-9-1997. These letters have been addressed to the Manager, SBI, Bazpur. The workman has put his signature. The management has not denied these letters so the letters shall be deemed proved. In these letters the bank has asked to furnish balance certificate depicting the balance with the SBI, Bazpur in the current account 2B /7 . The workman Dharamvir has put his signature over these letters . These letters indicatethat he was assigned the work of delivering these letters to the appropriate authorities . Paper No. B-77 isthe letter written on letter head of Punjab & Sind Bank by Shri Hari Singh asking the workman to report on1-4-1998 .

The case ofthe workman is that he has been working inthe respondent/bank in branch Bazpur since 25-3-1996 and his period of work is from 25-3-1996 to 25-12-1996 so he has worked for 240 days at least in the year 1996.

That the contents of para 3 insofar as they relate to matter of record are not disputed . However, it is stated that there has been no violation of the provisions of labour law, ashas been alleged in this para . It is again reiterated that the claimant was never in the employment of the managementbank and hence the whole basis of reference to this Hon'ble Tribunal is misconceived and liable to be 7536

E BAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

but has not mentioned his name in his affidavit . So he has not discharged initial burden of proving that he has worked for240 days .

The manseement witness has admitted in his cross Katrination that he took over charge from Mr. B.C. Mishra and he can wealizy the signature of Shri B.C. Mishra . The vanagement witness has admitted that the signature on page25 is the signature of Shri B.C. Mishra the then Branch Manager and zt point B co the same page Mr. B.C. Mishra 'he then Branch Manager has attested the signature of Dharamvir white is found at point B. So it is proved that The workran wo, antrusted with the work of delivering registered letters and his signature was attested by the Des ich Manager, Shri B. Misbrs .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the photouchy of attendance register B-52 to B-69 is not a copy of atendence register . It is a slip of current account of the Oriental Bank.

Itwas further submitted that he has admitted in his crose-examination that he was initially paid Rs . 300 thereafter itwas raised to Rs . 600 and finallyto Rs . 700. The wages which hehas admittedly received are not the wages of a casual labour or daily rated employee who works for the entire month. None can work for the entire month on the wages of Rs . 300 or Rs . 600 or Rs . 700. It appears that he was not employed on all the days or on all the months of a year . He was cmployed off and on so he was paid initially Rs . 300 and it was raised to Rs.600 and then to Rs.700 . The minimum wages in the year 1996-97 would not have been less than Rs . 4000 to Rs . 5000. The amount which he has received shows that he was not a dailyrated worker for the whole month or for the whole year butwork was taken from him off and on when it was required. So he has failed to prove that he has worked for 240 days either in 1996 or in 1997 .

It was schnitted from the side of the management that there is no sanctioned post and the workman was engaged ce need basis. He has not completed 240 days work.

K was submitted from the side of the management Indt the claimant was never in the employment of the management. Hence, the whole basis of his claim is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.

Itwas submitted from the side of the counsel of the workman that the original paper is in possession of the employer bank hence the workman could not produce the relevant records to establish his status in the bank but impliedly it has been established that he has worked for more than 240 days . For attracting Section 25 of the IDAct , 1947 he has to establish the fact by document that he has worked for 240 days . It cannot be proved only by oral evidence or by affidavit as has been held by the Hon'ble ApexCourt.

The workman applicant has failed to prove the assertion of his claim statement so he is not entitled to get any relief. It appears that he was given only conveyance chargesto deliver all the registered letters and Daks as and whenrequired so he was paid Rs . 300 .

The reference is replied thus:

It was further sabzitted from the side of the management that as per the scheme framed in the Government geidelines and as laid down in the BPS dated 19-10-1966 the bank has right to appoint temporary employee for limited period of work which is initially of temporary nature . The bank may employ an additional workmaninconnection with the temporary increase ofwork of permanent nature. The claimant was one such employee . Therespondent/bank has its own recruitment policy and guidelines which cannot be overlooked. The respondent/ bank is a Public Sector bank and acts accordingto the provisions of the Constitution . The provisions of retrenchment are not applicable in the case of the claimant ashis engagement was purely on casual basis . There is no violation of Section 25 H of the ID Act, 1947 .

The action of the management of the Oriental Bank ofCommerce in terminating the services of Shri Dharam Veer , Ex . Temporary Peon - cum-Messanger w.e.f. 25-12-1997 is just, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is givenaccordingly .

Date: 27-7-2006.

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्त, 2006

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that he has filed photacopy of attendance slip but it has been verified by Shri H. Mohan only for 45 days and thereafter there is no such verification . No one can get slip of current Oriental Bank and put his signature and write his name on that slip . That slip is not for the purpose of attendance of a workman or an employee . Since the attendance slip filed by the workman has not been attested byany official of the bank the workman may have obtained it and put his name and signature and date on such photocopies . The photo slips of attendance filed by the workman are not authentic and on this basis it cannot be said that he has put his signature in the attendance register . It is not a genuine proof of his attendance .

का.आ. 3497.- 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 मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चंड़ीगढ़ नं. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/88/2004.- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd August, 2006

Itwas further submitted that he has filed photocopies of two or three letters on which his signatures have been verified. He may have been engaged for a short period and he mayhave been given some dak or some registered letters as per need . So his engagement was need based. He has not proved that anyone else was employed in his place .He has named one Shri Deepak Kumar working in his place

S.O. 3497. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2004) 7637 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Chandigarh No. II as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank, and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-8-2006.

[No. L-12012/88/2004- IR (B- II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

Asmade out in his claim Petition, the grievance of the workman is that he was employed as Chowkidar-cum- Peon on daily wages by the Management in the year 1972 andhis services were regularized on 29th March, 1975, as Peon-cum-Guard against a regular post at Bhattu Kalan . Thereafter, he was promoted as Peon-cum Daftari being a Matriculate . He, however, porformed the duty of Cashier/ Clerkduringthe peak hours ofTerrorism at Dabwali and in that regard he deposited an amount of Rs.1000 cash , as security deposit.

TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH

Presiding Officer : Shri KULDIP SINGH

Case I. D. No. 39/2004

Registered on 29-09-2004/30-11-2004

Date ofDecision 19th July,2006

Raghbir Signh S /o Shri Hardwari Lal, Bhatta Colony, Near Lachhmi Narayan Mandir, Ward No. 12, Distt . Fatehebad

(Haryana)

...Petitioner

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Hissar

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Workman inperson

Mr. H. L. Khattar , AR

For the Management :

AWARD

The Govt . of India vide their notification No. L- 12012/ 88/2004- IR (B- II) dated3-9-2004 referred the following matter for the consideration of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Shri Raghbir Singh S/o Sh . Hardawri Lal isjust and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

Hisfurther case is that his wife became a patient of Mental Depression and remained under the treatment of different hospitals including PGI , Rohtak, Ganganagar and Tatia Hospital, for 15 years . His two children Komal and Yashu Kumar were handicapped suffering from polio and they also remained under the treatment of different doctors . The daughter Komal was operated upon for a foot problem. Hismother also suffered from Stomach problem, who finally expired on 5th Feb. , 2002. In view of the illness of his relations he applied for grant of leave to the Management. He personally met the officers of Bank and made request, but no action was taken in the matter . In support of his claim he submitted applications to the Management and sought extension of leave . However . he received a short notice and reported for duty, but Shri Saran, the Branch Manager did not allow him to join the duty for want of certificate from Civil Surgeon, Hissar . However , the Civil Surgeon refused to issue the same on the grounds that the treatment has not been received by his relations from a Govt. Hospital . His services were terminated by the Management in violation of provisions of Bipartite agreements . No aregular inquiry was held in the matter . He was not given an opportunity to show his innocence and theManagement drew illegal presumptions . They did not even follow the principle of natural justice and this way the order of theManagement terminating his services is bad in law. The Management also violated the provisions of Sec . 25 -F, G & N. The workman has prayedthat he may be reinstated in service with full back wages and all service benefits . He has also demanded the cost of litigation.

The reference remained with the CGIT-cum- Labour Court- I, Chandigarh, till 30th November, 2004 when it was transferred to this Tribunal and was registered in this Tribunal on that day. In response to the notice issued , the workman appeared in person whereas the Management appeared through Shri Harjit Singh , HRD Officer of the Management Bank . The workman filed the Claim Petition , a copy of which was given to the Management . The Management took time to file the Written Statement and it was only on 21st March , 2005 that they filed the Written Statement, a copy of which, was provided to the workman.

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman stating that since the present dispute has not been raised by a Trade Union, therefore , it is not an Industrial Dispute . Moreover , the workman having voluntarily retired from service in terms of Sec. 17- A of the fifthBipartite Settlement therefore, it does not fall in the category of Industrial Dispute . It is also their claim that since the workman has raised his dispute almost ten years from the date of alleged occurrence , which took place on 12th Sep. , 1994, the claim is barred by limitation , and is not maintainable as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofNedungadi Bank Ltd. V/s. K. Madhavan Putta and Others decided on 28th Jan. , 2000.

The record of the file further shows that the workman filed his re- application , to what the Management stated in the Written Statement. Workman also filed his affidavit whereas the Management filed the affidavit of their Witness R.K. Makkar in support of their defence to the claim of the workman . The workman as well as the witness of the Management, Shri R.K. Makkar , appeared as witness and proved their affidavits as well as the documents placed on record by them.

Onmerits it is the claim of the Management that it is a wrong claim of the workman that the Management 7638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11, 1928

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)]

tothem the disengagement of the workman was in terms of Sec.17 (a) of the fifth Bipartite Settlement, therefore, his disengagement was a voluntary retirement. They have not disputed that the workman had served them right from a year 1978 till April 1993 , in different capacities . Their only opposition to the claim is on two grounds firstly that the disengagement of the workman was a voluntary retirement; and that the reference is bad for latches as the workman had raised the dispute after about ten years of the occurrence.

terminated his services without departmental inquiry . As this was a case of voluntarily retirement by the workman in terms of Section 17 , Sub-section (a) of fifth Bipartite Settlement, therefore , the Management was not required to conduct a departmental inquiry and in the face of that , Sec. 25 of the Act does not applicable . Admitting that the workman had served the Management for 20 years , but denied that he was promoted as Peon- cum- Daftari . Accordingto them, being senior among the peons , he was made Daftari and also officiated, in the clerical cadre . They disputed that the workman had submitted any leave application and the claim made by him is wrong . They also denied the contents of para 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 , for want of knowledge and submitted that the workman had retired voluntarily. They furhter claimed that the management has not withheld any of the dues of the workman may have also claimed that notices were issued to the workman on 9th Feb. 28th March, 1994 and gave the time to the workman to join his duty. According to them the Management was not required to hold an inquiry in the matter as it was not a case of disciplinary action , nor it was the case of termination of services as is made out. According to them the workman was given two opportunities to explain his position. It is their case that the workman is not entitled to any relief, therefore, the reference be answered accordingly.

In the re-application filed by him, the workman contested the claim of the Management that the present dispute cannot be raised by him as an individual and that it is not the case of Industrial Dispute . He has also contested the Judgement referred by the Management is on different point and is not applicable in as stated that he has deposited Rs . 1000. He reiterated the facts stated in the Claim Petition that he is entitled to the relief sought by him .

Ihave gone through the file and have also considered the arguments made by the parties in writing. I have also critically examind the documents placed on record and the statement of witnesses recorded in this Tribunal . Reference to the documents , statement of witnesses and other evidence shall be made at appropriate place .

There is no dispute about the fact that the workman was disengaged from the service of the Management on 24th April , 1993. The dispute is with regard to the manner inwhich the workman was disengaged from the service . It is his claim that the Management terminated his services in violation of provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act , hereinafter to be referred as , Act. They did not issue him any notice before terminating his services nor paid him retrenchment compensation . They further voilated the provisions of the Act by retaining his juniors in service and terminating his service . As against to it the claim of the Management is that it was not a case of termination of services; and that the workman had abandoned the service himself therefore , the reference is bad in law as there exists no Inustrial Dispute as defined by the Act. According

As records the claim of the Management that the reference is bad for want of delay in raising the dispute, I am of the opinion that it was for the appropriate Govt . to see whether the application has been made after a long delay. The reference in this Tribunal was received in September , 2004. The Management has not shown as to whenthe workman had raised the demand notice . There is a photocopy of the application alleged to have been made bythe workman on 02-04-2003 and another application on 12-09-2003 . There is no evidence to show that the workman had raised the dispute ten year after the occurrence as the reference has reached this court after its passage to Assistant Commissioner of Labour (conciliation officer) and the appropriate Govt . The Management did not ask the workman as to when he had raised the dispute . Thus there is no evidence to show that the workman raised the dispute after a long time . The reliance of Management on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavan Kutty and others , reported as "Judgment today 2000 (1 ) SC388 , is misplaced as in that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that there was no rational basis on which the Central Govt . exercised power under Section 10 after the lap of seven year of dismissal of workman. In the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the fact and circumstance of case there was no justification for condoning the long delay Therefore, in that judgment their lordship held the dispute a stale one . They, however , left the question open to hold as to which of the dispute shall stale one , holding that as towhen a dispute can be said to stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case .In the present case, as is shown , there are documents placed on record which show that the workman was terribly involved in the affairs of the family. His mother , two sons , wife and daughter were not only sick but some of them were even operated upon. The mother died during that period and the wife is a mental case , receiving continuous treatment from different hospitals. In my opinion the present case is not the case like the one which was before the Lordship in the case of Nedungadi Bank (Supra ) .The parliament must have pressing reasons not to prescribe any limitation for the appropriate Govt . to exercise power under Sec. 10 of Act . It cannot be said that the present reference is bad for latches. The objection raised by the Management is, therefore , rejected.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

The second plea of the Management is that it was not a case of termination of service of the workman rather acase of workman having voluntarily retired in terms of para 17(a) of fifth Bipartite Settlement. According to them the Management issued notice to the workman on 9-2-1994 and 28th March , 1994 and gave 30 days time to jointhe duties, but the workman did not join his duties nor submitted his reply . The workman categorically denied having received the letters dated 9th Feb. , & 28th March , 1994. The Management claimed that those notices were sent under R/C, but they have not produced any evidence to show that the notices to the workman were sent under registered cover so as to draw the presumption of notices having been served upon the workman . There is also no other evidence on record to draw the presumption of service ofnotices on the workman and in view of this the law laid downby theHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate Bank V/ s General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another reported as AIR 2000 SC, 2198 and relied upon by them is not helpful to the Management. As against to it, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported as AIR 1999 SC 1351 (Supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case . Interestingly, the presiding judge of both the benches was the same. There is , therefore , no evidence to show that the Management had served the notice on the workman directing him to join his duties within 30 days .

The workman has claimed that he had gone to the bankto report for duty, but Mr. Sera, who according to him was the Manager of the Management Branch at that time, did not allowhim to join his duties . The Management has neither produced Mr. Sera to admit or deny the assertion nor has denied that there was no person of such name in the Employment of Management or that his presence cannotbe Procured without undue delay and without incurring huge expenses . The only witness produced by the Management stated nothing in this regard . There is , therefore, no rebuttel to the claim of the workman that he had gone to report for duty but the concerned Branch Manager did not allow him to join his duties on the plea that the workman should first produce the certificate ofthe civil surgeon to support the claim, that the workman could not attend to his duties due to the ill health of his family members . The workman in his statement stated that since he had received the treatment of his family members mostly fromthe private doctors therefore , the Civil Surgeon refused to issue the certificate demanded by the Management .

The workman has further claimed that he had sent in application for grant of leave , the fact which is not categoricallydenied by the Management. It is also admitted by the Management that the workman had put in 20 years of service by the time of his disengagement. They further admitted that the workman performed his duties as a Peon and he was made Dafftari , on the basis of the seniority as a Peon; and that the workman also worked as Cashier -cum-

7639

भारत का राजपत्न : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Clerk. This showsthat the performance of the workman was to the satisfaction of the Management, therefore, he was given higher responsibilities from time to time. In the circumstances it was incumbent upon the Management to have inquired into the matter of his absence from duty . The Management has utterly failed to prove that they had served notice on the workman asking him to join duties within 30 days , but he failed to do so , therefore, the Management deemed him to have voluntarily retired from service. In this view of mine I get support from the judgment ofHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K Yadav V/s J.M.A Industries Ltd. reported as (1993 ) 3 SCC 259. The judgment relied upon by the Management in the case of Syndicate Bank(Supra) is not applicable to the facts ofthis caseso is nothelpful to them. In that case the Management proved that notices under R/C were sent to the workman oncorrect address , but were received back with the report of the Postal Authorities . In the present case the Management neither claim nor has proved that the notices to the workman had been sent under R/ C on the correct address .

After going through the pleadings of the parties; the evidence produced and the law relied upon by them, I am of the opinion that the Management has failed to show that the order of termination of services of the workman Raghbir Singh was just and legal . The facts proved rather show that the Management failed in its duty to observe the provisions of Sec.25 (F) of the Act and that of the fifthBipartite Settlement they did not give notice to the workman before terminating his services . They did not pay him the retrenchment compensation nor informed the appropriate Govt . about their intension to terminate the services of the workman . The termination of services of the workman was, therefore, bad in law and is declared so . He is treated to be in service as if there was no order of termination of his services .

Now, the question that arises is as to what relief the workman is entitled to ? There is neither any claim nor proof that the workman remained gainfully engaged from the date of termination of his services . It is true that the liability to prove that he was not gainfully engaged was that of the workman. There has come no positive or negative evidence on record in this regard . It has also to be taken into consideration that the workman sent Demand Notice to theManagement a copy of which is on record , almost after eight years of his termination from service . Therefore , for that period he is not entitled to any back wages . In this regard, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofAjaib Singh V/s Sirhind Co -operative Marketing- cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and other , reported as AIR 1999 SC 1351 can be referred to in support. However , since his termination from service has been declared as bad in law , he is entitled to full back wages from the date of his demand notice i.e 16th Oct. 2002 , at the rate he was to get as if his services had not be terninated . The 7640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

Management is directed to take him back in service immediately and also pay to him the back wages within 3 months fromtoday failing which the workman shall also be entitled to interest on the arrears due at the rate of 9 % p.a . The award is passed. Let a copy of it be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3498.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली नं. -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/10/2004- आई आर( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd August, 2006

S.O. 3498. In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court -New Delhi No. II as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofBank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-8-2006.

[No. L- 12012/10/2004- IR (B -II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 114/2004 Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai

In the Matter of :-

I Shri Lokesh Kumar Gupta, S/o. Shri T.C. Gupta , 1/40, Raksha Puram , Meerut (UP).

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Ghaziabad Zone , 43 Navyug Market, Gnaziabad(UP).

[PART II -SBC. 3( ii) ]

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 120 12/10/ 2004- IR(B- II) Central Government Dt. 14-6-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing Shri Lokesh Kumar Gupta , S/ o Shri T.C. Gupta , Clerk cum Cashier from service w.e.f. 30-11-2000 is just , fair and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to . "

Ittranspires from perusal of the record that the workman was directed to file affidavit in evidence on 3-4-2006 . But the workman did not file the same on 3-4-2006, 7-6-2006 and 27-7-2006. Opportunity for filing affidavit was closed . The management was present all along.

The workman applicant has not filed affidavit in support of his claim . The assertion of the claim are not proved.

No dispute award is given .

Date: 27-7-2006 .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3499.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/135/2003- आई आर( बी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 2nd August , 2006

S.O. 3499.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-Bangalore as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Vijaya Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-8-2006.

[No. L- 12012/135/2003 - IR ( E - 1 )) C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy 7641 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT BANGALORE- 560022

Dated: 21st July, 2006

PRESENT

Shri A.R. Siddiqui, Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 61/2003

IPARTY

II PARTY

TheAsstt. General

Smt. Sagaya Rani ,

Manager,

VijayaBank,

231, Francis Cottage, Behind Anjaneya Temple , Kalyan Nagar , Chelikere, Bangalore-560033

Regional Office, No. 19 ,

PrimroseRoad,

Shruthi Complex,

Bangalore-560025

APPEARANCES

1stParty

Smt. S. Abiramavalli , Advocate.

2nd Party :

Shri Pradeep S. Sawkar , Advocate .

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referredthis dispute vide order, No. L- 12012/ 135 /2003/IR (B - II) dated 22nd October, 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank interminating the services of Smt. Sagaya Rani , Parttime Sweeper w.e.f. 9-9-2000 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the disputant is entitled to and from which date ?"

23.15 ofBipartite Settlement, Sastry Award and Desai Award have contended that the services of the first party were being engaged temporarily in a temporary vacancy caused by in the absence of a particular permanent workman . It was further contended that as per the rules formulated by the Govt. of India,the recruitment to the post of subordinate category has to be made through the medium of Employment Exchange and complying with the reservation policy. At Para 4 the management contended that the first party was engaged as a temporary part time sweeper w.e.f. 29-02-1995 on daily wage basis and her engagement came to be ended on 3-10-1998 when one Shri Hemanth Kumar , recruited as part time sweeper by following the recruitment ruleshad reported for duty . Shri Hemanth Kumar remained absent from 25-1-1999 and then first party as a temporary Part time sweeper was engaged during the period of absence of Shri Hemanth Kumar and her engagement was purely on temporary basis ; that as per the recruitment rules the candidate seeking appointment inthe subordinate staff category should have completed 18 years of age but below 26 years of age and whereas the date of birth of the first party was mentioned as 25-7-1968 in the copy of the Employment Exchange Card and she had shown her age as 27 years when submitted an application seeking the job on14-6-1996. Therefore , she had exceeded the age limit at . the time of initial employment. From paras 5 to 14 the management cited various decisions of their Lordship of Supreme Court as well as High Courts in support of the above said contention. In reply to Para 1 of the Claim statement the management at Para 16 of the Counter Statement contended that the first party was engaged as a temporarypart time sweeper in SSI Branch , Bangalore w.e.f. 28-2-1995 and her engagement came to an end on 3-10-1998 when a candidate selected following the recruitment rules , reported for duty. Said candidate, Shri Hemanth Kumar remained absent from 25-1-1999 to 17-9-2000 and in his place first party was engaged during the said period . Therefore, management requested this tribunal to reject the reference .

4.Duringthe course of trial the management examined Sr. Branch Manager, SSI branch , Bangalore as MW1 and got marked six documents at EX. M1 to M6. His statement in examination chief for ready reference is as follows : -

" I have been working as a Senior Branch Manager , SSI Branch, Bangalore, since April , 2004. I know the facts of this case based on the records .

First party was engaged as a Part time sweeper on daily wages purely on temporary basis . Generally such a temporary arrangement will be made when Permanent Sweepers remains absent from duty for one reason or the other .

2. A very simple case made out by the first party workman in her Claim Statement is that she was working as a Part time Sweeper with the management bank w.e.f. 28th February, 1995, initially, on daily wages at Rs . 25/- and then increased to Rs . 30/ - , 35/-etc. She was employed as permanent Sweeper w.e.f. 1-4-1997 and her salary was raised to Rs.1000/- per month . She was discharging her duties to the maximum satisfaction of the bank but all of a sudden her services were terminated on 9-9-2000 without any notice but she was paid a sum of Rs . 3800/- at the time of her termination. She approached the bank authorities to get her job back but was not taken back. She hailed from a very poor family and therefore, she has been finding it extremely hard and impossible to manage her family. Therefore, she requested this tribunal to pass an award directing the bank authority to reappoint her as a full time sweeper in the same branch where she was working.

The requirements for appointing permanent sweepers is that the name of the candidate must come through Employment Exchange and his/her age should be between 18-26 . No qualification is required but it should be below 10th Standard.

3. The management by its Counter Statement while quoting Paras 20.7 , 21.20 and sub-clause (c) of Paragraph

2538 G1/06-18 7642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]

argued on the point that SSI branch at Bangalore was opened in the year 1995 and from the day when the first partywas engaged as part time sweeper and therefore, she being a SC candidate and there being a relaxation of 5 years period for such candidates , she must have been absorbed in the services .

First party was engaged in place of permanent sweeper by name Hemanth Kumar who remained absent fromduty. Initially name of the first party was not sponsored through Employment Exchange . I now see the application of the first party seeking the above saidjob Ex . MI . Her age as shown therein is 27 years . Her engagement was in terms of Bipartite Settlement (BPS) . The Xerox copy ofthe BPS is at Ex. M2.

Circular dated 27-3-1993 giving details of the requirements in this regard is at Ex. M3.

I now see the Xerox copy of the Employment Exchange Card furnished by the first party and filed along with Claim Statement showing the date ofbirth as 25-7-1968 , therefore, she was age barred when applied and furnished her name by the Employment Exchange, it is at Ex. M4.

Ex.M5 series are the extract of the Wage Register to show the payment of wages to the first party during the period from 28-2-1995 to 3-10-1998 in which period she was engaged intermittently and in none of the yearshe worked for 240 days continuously .

It is not true that the Second Party advised the first party to get herself registered in the Employment Exchange.

I now see a Xerox copy of the letter dated 9-4-1997, it was written by the Branch Manager to the Deputy General Manager filed by the first party, it is at Ex. M6 ."

5. The first party filed her affidavit by way of examination chief and in her further examination got marked five documents at Ex . WI to W5 . In her affidavit she reiterated her averments made in the Claim Statement . She further added to say that her services were terminated on 9-9-2000 without prior notice and she was paid a sum of Rs. 3800/ - towards salary arrears for the year 2000 and a sum of Rs . 7000/ - as arrears of her salary in the year 2001. I would like to refer to the statements of MW1 & WW1 in their cross examination as and when found relevant and necessary.

6.Learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that the first party was engaged in the place of one Shri Hemanth Kumar who remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. He contended that as per Ex. M7 the first party had crossed 27 years of age at the initial engagement itself and therefore, she was not entitled to be absorbed permanently for the said reason as well as for the reason that her name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.

7. Learned counsel for the first party on the other hand argued that the workman having worked with the management bank continuously from the year 1995 to 2000 the action of the management terminating her services without the compliance of provisions of Section 25F ofthe I.D. Act, a case of illegal retrenchment amounting to illegal termination liable to be set aside by this tribunal . He also

8. Keeping in view the point of reference , the only relevant point to be considered would be as to whether the firstparty worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more during a period of 12 calendar months and if so , the management was not justified in terminating her services without the compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act . The various contentions taken by the management in the Counter Statement having regard to theBipartite Settlements , Sastry Award and Desai Award about the procedure and the rules prescribed for engagement of a temporary worker and also for appointment ofa candidate on permanent basis and the contention that the first party was not eligible to be appointed on permanent basis , she having crossed the age of 27 years and that her name was not sponsored through the Employment Exchange , in my opinion are beside the point . Asper the point of reference, here we are , called upon to find out as to whether the alleged unjustified termination ofthe services ofthe firstparty by the management is tobe sustained in the eye of law and we are not on the point as to whether the first party is entitled to be absorbed in the services of the management on permanent basis as a permanent part time sweeper etc. Therefore, as noted above, we have to find out whether the first party has worked in the management bank continuously for a period of240 days and more in any calendar year during the period from 1995 to September 2000 when her services were terminated. The first party supporting her case examined herself and deposed to the fact that she had been working with the management bank continuously as a part time sweeper right from the year 1995 up till September 2000. Among the five documents she produced , the only document which was relevant for the purpose marked at Ex.WI series are the pay slips ten in numbers from March 1997 till February 1998. From the aforesaid pay slips which arenot disputed by the management, it is very much evident thatduring aforesaid period of 13 months she was in the service ofthe management continuously being paid regular salary including the basic pay, DA, HRA , CCA and WA . Therefore , these pay slips will make it clear that she worked with the management during the aforesaid period continuously and the period was more than 240 days in the 12 calendar months . That apart , the management in its counter statement itself at Para 16 while giving reply to Para 1 of the Claim Statement has admitted the fact that the first party was working with the management w.e.f. 28-2-1995 up till 3-10-1998 and then she was again engaged from 25-1-1999 to 17-9-2000 . It is the case ofthe management thather services were terminated on 3-10-1998 for the first time when Shri Hemanth Kumar was selected by following the Recruitment Rules and reported for duty and when 7643 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

of240 days and more in each calendar year between 1995 and 2000 and thereby she fulfilled the requirement as mandated under the provisions of Section 25(B) of the ID Act.

9. It is in this view of the matter , the next question to beconsidered would be whether the management complied with the requirements under Section 25F of the ID Act as terminating the services of the first party amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(00) of the IDAct. It isnowhere the case of the management either made out in the Counter Statement or in the oral testimony ofMW1 or by way of suggestion to first party in her cross examination that the management had complied and fulfilled the requirements as provided under Section 25F of the ID Act. Therefore , it can be safely held that the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party was illegal retrenchment which tantamounts to illegal termination not to be sustained in the eye of law and accordingly it is to be held that the management was not justified in terminating the services of the first party. Since the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party is held to be illegal and void abinitio, the natural corollary would be the reinstatement of the first party workman to the post held by her at the time of termination,

10. Coming to the question of relief of back wages , the statement of the first party at Para 12 of her affidavit that she has been without job unable to manage her family has not been disputed on behalf of the management in her cross examination . That apart, the management witness also has not spoken to a single word in his examination chief to suggest that the first party has been gainfully employed while was away from the service of the management. Therefore , keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the work, the first party was carrying out and also taking into consideration the delay of about 3 years in raising the dispute from the date of alleged termination , it appears to methat ends ofjustice will be met if the first party is paic back wages at the rate of 40 per cent of her last drawn wages from the date of her termination till the date of her reinstatement . Her job being temporary in nature , there cannot be any relief to be granted to her about the continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of her reinstatement . Hence the following award:

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party as a temporary part time sweeper with 40 % of back wages from the date of termination till the date of her reinstatement .

No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 21st July 2006)

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer said Hemanth Kumar remained absent from duty from 25-1-1999 to 17-9-2000 once again the first party was engaged in his place . Therefore , as per the very admissions made by the management, the first party was not engaged by the bank only for a short period of two to three months in between 3-10-1998 and 25-1-1999 and was in the employment of the management right from 28-2-1995 till 17-9-2000 minus the above said period of 2 to 3 months continuously. Therefore, it goes without saying that the first party worked continuously for a period of more than 240 days during the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 and then in the years 1999 and 2000. It is interesting to note that the management in the counter statement no where disputed the fact that the first party was working with the bank continuously for a period of 240 days and more in each calendar year during the period from 1995 to 2000. It is in this view of the matter the statement of MW1 in his examination chief that the first party did not work continuously for a period of 240 days has to be discarded as false and incorrect. Statement of MW1 in his cross examination that the first party was engaged during the period from 1995 to 1998 in the place of said Hemanth Kumar also is liable to be discarded as it goes against the very contention taken by the management, wherein it is stated that it is only in the month of October 1998, the said Hemanth Kumar was appointed as a permanent part time sweeper and that earlier to his appointment it was the first party being engaged by the bank as a temporary part time sweeper. It is further seen from the statement of MW1 in his cross examination that the branch in question infact was opened for the first time at Residency road, Bangalore in the year 1995 and it is from the year 1995 itself the first partywas being engaged as the part time sweeper and therefore , as argued for the first party, her services must have been engaged by the bank against the permanent vacancy itself asundisputedly the permanent part time sweeper namely said Hemanth Kumar came to be appointed in the month of October 1998, there being no permanent part time sweeper working in the branch earlier to that. That the first party worked with bank continuously from February , 1995 to 3.10.1998 has also been substantiated by the wage register extract produced by the management itself and marked before this tribunal at Ex.M5. Therefore, in the light of the admissions made by the management in the counter statement as referred to supra and the document namely the wage register extract produced by the management, the aforesaid pay slips produced by the first party workman coupled with the statement of the workman before this tribunal that she worked continuously with the bank from 1995 to September 2000 except for two three months as noted above, and this statement of first party having gone unchallenged and uncontroverted in her cross examination for the management, this tribunal has got absolutely no hesitation in the mind in recording a finding that the first party was in the service of the management continuously right form February 1995 up till October 1998 andfrom January 1999 till September 2000 and in the result it goes without saying that she worked continuously for a period 7644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्त, 2006

Bank, Atma Ram House , 1,Tolstoy Marg and the Chief Manager , Punjab National Bank, Branch Office: Okhia Industrial Area, New Delhi in terminating the services of the workman Shri Binesh Pal , part-time sweeper w.e.f. 6-1-1998 is legal and just ? If not , what relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date ."

का.आ. 3500.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली नं.-2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 105/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/84/2000- आई आर ( बी.- II) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the applicant General Secretary , PNB Employees ' Union , Delhi is functioning in the Union Territory of Delhi and is a registered Trade Union , enjoying absolute majority of the bank employees in the respondent bank .

New Delhi , the 2nd August, 2006

Thatthe service conditions of the workmen employed in PunjabNational Bank are governed by Industry - wise Awards/BPS.

That the workman , Shri Binesh Pal joined the services ofthe bank as a part time sweeper on 7-12-1989 and posted at Punjab National Bank, B.O. Okhla , New Delhi .

S.O. 3500.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, New Delhi No. II as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank, Regional Office , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 2-8-2006.

That in 1996 the workman was drawing 3/4 of the scale wages of a member of the sub - staff from the same branch of Punjab National Bank .

[No. L- 12012/84/2000- IR(B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

That during the end of 1996 the workman could not attend the office , for circumstances beyond his control andwhen he tried to join duties he was not allowed to do so and mark his attendance .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

I. D. No.105/2000

Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai

In theMatter of:-

Shri Binesh Pal , C/o. PNB Employees Union, 710 , Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi -110006.

Versus

1. The Chairman,

That since then , he has been regularly going to the branch tojoin bank duties but was not allowed to do so on one plea or the other . This happened for a number of months and when the workman became certain that the management of the branch was playing foul, he addressed letter to the branch and sought to deliver the same personally on 27th August, 1977. However, the same was also not, accepted by the authorities of the branch and hence the workman had no other choice but to send the same through Regd. Post and also under UPC. The letter dated 27-8-1977 is attached and marked as Annexure -I .

Punjab National Bank, Head office : 7, Bhikaji Cama Place , NewDelhi .

That the workman when again approached the branch authorities in September , 1977 he was told that his services stood terminated and he would not be allowed to join duties.

2. The Sr. Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank, Regional Office: South Delhi Region , Atma Ram House , 1, TolstoyMarg, NewDelhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/84/ 2000 -IR(B- II) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT.20-9-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

That after getting a blunt reply from the management ofthe branch and no response to his communication dated 27th August, 1997 the workman addressed yet another letter dated 14-10-1977 to the Chief Manager, PNB , BO . Okhla , New Delhi with a copy to the Sr. Regional Manager, PNB, South Delhi Region , New Delhi for his information and necessary action in the matter . A copy of the said letter is enclosed and marked as Annexure -II .

The point runs as hereunder :-

That the workman received no reply to any of his representation dated 27-8-1997 and 14-10-1997.

"Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager, Regional Office: South Delhi Region, Punjab National

41 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपल :

That from the reply submitted by the management before the ALC( C) and reply to the statement of claim, filed by the union in the instant case it is stated that a notice was got published in Hindi Newspaper "Veer Arjun " on 22-11-1997, once again advising Shri , Binesh Pal to report for his duties within 30 days from the date of the said notice, failing which he would deem to have voluntarily retired from the service of the bank in accordance with the provisions of the BPS . ( Acopy of the reply letter , submitted by the management before the ALC( C) is enclosed and marked as Annexure III) . It shall be relevant to mention that the workman had adressed two letters dated 27-08-1997 and 14-10-1997, i.e. much , before the publication of the notice dated 22-11-1997 in Hindi Newspaper "Veer Arjun" clearly stating that in spite of his repeatedly going to the branch he was not allowed to join bank duties . On the contrary he was told that his services stood terminated and accordingly he would not be allowed to join . From the notice published in Hindi Newspaper as stated by the management in their reply dated 28-12-1999 addressed to the ALC(C) it is clear that till 22-11-1997 shri Binesh Pal was on the rolls of the branch and an employee of the bank and his services till then had not been terminated.

That both the letters addressed by the workman to the ChiefManager, PNB , BO : Okhla, New Delhi with a copy to the Sr. Regional Manager , PNB , South Delhi Region, New Delhi are a part of his personal file and can be traced, if this file is summoned by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Both these letters have been received will in time and much before the publication ofthe notice dated 22-11-1997 as statedby the management.

That no charge sheet was ever served on the workman by the management nor any inquiry conducted nor any opportunity afforded as per the principles of natural justice/law, as pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a number of cases . In terms of the judgment of the highest court of the land, the workman ought to have been given an opportunity to defend himself and prove his innocence, which procedure was never adopted and the workman was sumarily terminated which has been held bad in law. That having failed to get any justice at the hands of the management, the workman approached the union for held and assistance in resolving this dispute.

That the union also took up the matter with the management by writing two letters to the Sr. Regional Manager , PNB , South Delhi Region , New Delhi under whom, Branch Office , Okhla, New Delhi was functioning. The first letter was written on 10th March, 1999 ( copy enclosedandmarked as Annexure - IV), followed by another, letter dated 20th March, 1999 (Copy enclosed and marked as , Annexure - V) , urging upon the management to revoke their earlier instructions and allow the workman to join duties with the benefit of entire past service , including wages , increments etc.

7645

सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

That getting no response and having failed to get any justice from the management in the instant case , the union approached the ALC( C) , for help and assistance by raising a dispute vide its letter dated 9th, June 1999. (Copy enclosedand marked as Annexure - VI).

That the action of the managmeent in terminating the services of the workman without giving him due opportunity what to talk of reasonable opportunity and without following the procedure as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, was in violation of the principles ofnaturaljustice and law of the land.

That while the bank continues to keep the workman under intimation a temporary employee has been given employment on adhoc basis which is also bad in law, in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, unfair and unjust and amounts to indulgence in unfair labour practices.

That before the ALC(C) the management tried to justify its action, by raising various irrelevant pleas.

That thedispute before the ALC( C) ended in failure and hence this reference before the Hon'ble Tribunal .

That the action of the respondent/management is in breach of the industry- wise settlement , unjust, illegal , unlawful , arbitrary and in utter violation of the principles ofnatural justice.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the aforesaid dispute has been referred for adjudication by the appropriate government with the following terms of reference:

"Whether the action of the Sr. Regional Manager , Regional Office: South Delhi Region, Punjab National Bank, Atma Ram House, 1 , Tolstoy Marg and the ChiefManager , Punjab National Bank, Branch, Office: OkhlaIndustrial Area, New Delhi in terminating the services of the workman Shri Binesh Pal , part- time sweeper w.e.f. 06-01-1998 is legal and just ? If not,what relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date."

Fromthe aforesaid reference made by the appropriate government , it is quite apparent that the appropriate government has taken the , matter as that of termination of services of Shri Binesh Pal whereas Shri Binesh Pal was deemed tohave voluntarily retired from the services of the bank under Para 17 of the BPS. Accordingly the reference as made by the appropriate government to this Hon'ble Tribunal is not maintainable in the eyes of law .

Thatthe service conditions of workman staff in the banking industry including those of the workman applicant are governed by the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award and various BPS .

Shri Binesh Pal was working as a part time sweeper in 3/4 ofscale wages of the subordinate cadre at BO: Okhla 7646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

cases of Syndicate Bank Vs. Syndicate Bank Staff Association [ JT 2000(5) SC 243] and Punjab & Sind Bank Vs. S. Singh ( JT 2000 ( supplementary 3) SC450 has upheld the provisions of Para 17 of the BPS dealing with voluntary retiement of an employee . It is denied that there has been any denial of opportunity as alleged.

It is reiterated that Shri Binesh Pal was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the bank by the competent authority in 'accordance with' provisions of Para 17 of the BPS . The other allegations made in the para under reply are wrong and denied.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In his rejoinder he has reterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

w.e.f. 07-12-1989 . Shir Pal absented himselffrom his duties from 12-10-1996 to 06-11-1996 and again he absented himselfw.e.f. 27-12-1996 without any intimation . Shri Binesh Pal neither reported for his duties nor submitted any explanation, despite letters dated 30-12-1996, 22-01-1997, 20-02-1997, 20-06-1997 and 08-07-1997 . Since Shri Binesh Pal did not report for his duties in response to the said letters and in order to afford his final opportunity , notice was got published , in Hindi Newspaper "Veer Arjun" on 22-11-1997, once again advising , Shri Pal to report for his dutieswithin30 days from the date of the said notice failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services of the bank in accordance with the provisions of the BPS . It is submitted that despite notice published in the newspaper on 22-11-1997, Shri Pal neither submitted any explanation nor reported for his duties within the said period of 30 days and accordingly, he was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services of the bank in accordance with the provisions of the BPS and final order in this regard was also published in the daily newspaper "Veer Arjun" dated 06-01-1998.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

In view of the aforesaid it is respectfully submitted that the action of the bank in deeming Shri Binesh Pal having been voluntarily retired from the services of the bank is in accordance with the provisions of the BPS is legal and proper.

It issubmitted that Shri Binesh Pal unauthorisedly absented himself from his duties which ultimately resulted in his deemed voluntary retirement under the provisions of theBPS.

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that he could not attend the office for circumstances beyond his control during the end of 1996 andwhen he tried to join duties he was not allowed to do so. He was not allowed to mark his attendance . He went on regularly for joining' duties but he was not permitted. On 27-08-1997 he sent a registered letter and he approached in person , the branch authorities in September , 1997 but he was told that his services stood terminated and he will not be allowed to join duties .

It issubmitted that Shri Binesh Pal had never come to the branch to report for his duties and never deliverd the alleged letter dated 27-08-1992 . The submission is also vague .

It was further submitted that no charge sheet was served and the , bank passed the order of voluntary cessation of service whereas the workman applicant was always willing tojoin duties.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workman applicant absented from duty right from 27-12-1996 and a letter dated 30-12-1996 was sent to the workmanapplicant asking him to join . duties .

It isreiterated that Shri Binesh Pal never came to the branch and never delivered communication dated 27-08-1997 . However , it is submitted that letter dated 14-10-1997 was received by the bank but the contents of the same are categorically denied . It is reiterated that Shri Binesh Pal absented himself unauthorisedly from hisduties. It is further submitted that the letter dated 14-10-1997 did not warrant any reply since he had never earlier reported for his duties and was never disallowed to join the duties .

It is reiterated that Shri Binesh Pal unauthorisedly absented himself from his duties and was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services of the bank in accrordance with the provisions of Para 17 of the BPS , as amended up to date .

It was further submitted that again a letter dated 22-11-1997 was sent to the workman applicant at the address provided by him still he did not resume his duties . These letters have been sent to him by registered post . A letter dated 20-02-1997 was also sent by registered post to the workman applicant but it was received back , The respondent/management sent letter dated 21-02-1997 by registered post advising him that if he does not join action will betaken against him . On 08-07-1997 the management sent letter by registered post giving 30 days time to resume his duties or to submit explanation but the workman did not turn up . This letter has also been sent by registered post andUPC.

It is submitted that the services of Shri Binesh Pal have not been terminated but he has been deemed to have voluntarily retired from the services of the bank in accordance with the provisions of the BPS . It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

Itwas further submitted that when all the registered letters sent on the address were received back , the management issued a notice on 15-11-1997 advising the workman tojoin duties or give explanation , within 30 days still the workman did not turn up . The workman was voluntarily retired on 11-08-1997 and a notice has been published in "Veer Arjun ". The management has produced for my perusal the 4 original registered letters which have been received back by the, management as the workman was not available at the address provided by him . It appears from perusal of these letters and the photocopy of the newspaper that the management made his last effort to get 30 days notice served by registered post as well as through publication in newspaper but the workman did not turn up. There appears to be no substance in the allegation of the workman that he went to join again and again but he was not permitted to join . The workman has admitted in his cross examination that he had gone to his village Kuledha , Distt. Bulandsahar( UP) and he has not received any registered letter . He has also admitted that during his service he has given the address Jhugi No.392, Block 21, Indo Camp, Kalyanpuri 92, Delhi . He has further admitted in his cross examination that on 30-04-1998 he came to know that his services have been terminated and someoneelse was appointed in the bank in his place.

The workman absented from the bank from 27-12-1996 and he has admitted in his cross examination that he came to know of termination of his services on 30-04-1998 so the workman remained absent from 27-12-1996 to 03-08-1998 . The Bank has proved that several registered letters have been sent to the workman applicant. The bank has served 30 days notice on the workman still the workman did not turn up. It is the duty of the workman to establish that notice of 30 days for voluntary cessation of service has not been sent to him and served on him. In the instant case the management has established to the hilt that several registered letters have been sent to the workman still he did not appear.

Theworkman has admitted in his cross examination that during this period he went to his village Kuledha. It was the duty of the workman to inform the bank regarding his change of address . He has not sent any information regarding change of address so the bank made correspondence at the address provided by the workman applicant. So in the instant case the bank has complied with the provisions of the 17 A of the BPS .

To sumup the bank has proved that 30 days notice was served on the 'workman and still the workman neither turned up nor submitted any satisfactory explanation. In the circumstances the bank can invoke the provisions of section 17 A of the BPS .

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in JT 2000 (5) SC 243 that the bank is well within its rights to

7647

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

invoke the provisions of the BPS and treat the employee to be voluntary retired as he has abandoned his services. It has been further held that no inquiry is needed for passing the order of treating the workman to have abandoned his services.

Ithas beenheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2001 ILLJ 2003 that in case 30 days notice is served in view of section 17 A ofthe BPS the employee can be voluntarily retired. There is no question of compliance with the principles of natural justice and inquiry.

In the instant case the workman has absented from 17-12-1996 to 03-08-1998 for over two years . The bank has rightly invoked section 17A of the BPS.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the Sr. Regional Manager , Regional Office: South Delhi Region , Punjab National Bank, Atma RamHouse, 1, Tolstoy Marg and the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Branch Office: Okhla IndustrialArea, New Delhi interminating the services of the workman Shri Binesh Pal, Part time sweeper w.e.f. 06-01-1998 is legal andjust . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award isgivenaccordingly.

Date:28-07-2006.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3501.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इंश्योरेंस कं. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण Ⅰ. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/38/99-आई आर (विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd August , 2006

S.O. 3501.-In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal New Delhi -I as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 02-08-2006.

[No. L- 17012/38/99 -IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

7648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL

No. 1 NEW DELHI

I. D. NO . 9/2000

Shri Mahesh Thakur

S/o Shri Awadh Thakur ,

C/ o Shri S. Vasudev ,

C-1/3 , S.F.S. , D.D.A.

Claimant

Saket, New Delhi .

Versus

National Insurance Company Ltd. ,

Delhi Regional Office,

" Jeevan Bharati , "

Tower - II , Level IV , 124,

Connaught Circus ,

NewDelhi -1.

Management

APPEARANCE

None for workman .

Shri Rajinder Bhawan with Shefali Dhawan for

Management.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 17012/3 8/99 /IR (B- II) dated 31-1-2000 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

availed the services of the workman for all the activities . In view of the continuation of service of the workman and also in view of the policy decision of the management to regularize the services of the workman . The workman was told by the management during November 1992, that the regional office has favourably considered the case of the workman for regularization and his services would be regularized as soon as the vacancy arose. The workman met the officials from time to time to verify vacancy position and no vacancy arise though considerable time expired. Finally some vacancies arose in 1997-98 he requested the officials at the branch to give him appointment as the management called candidates for employment through EmploymentExchange instead of appointing the workman . The workman also came to know that the management by its comunication dated 18-2-98 directed consideration of all casual labourers who completed 240 days period 12 of months, for regularization. Non consideration of workman for regular appointment , despite the policy decision of the management is illegal , arbitrary and discriminatory. The workman is entitled to be given regular appointment as per hisposition as he has put in more than 5 years as casual labour and he is entitled to be given regular employment as per the policy decision of the management. It is further averred that the management has regularized services of number of casual workers from time to time as and when vacancies were available and he has come to know as many. as11 persons namely Lalit Mohan , Mohan Singh , Madan Lal , Yashpal , Arjun Singh , Sansar Chand , Ram Vinod, Basant , Thapa, Shri Chand and Radha Raman (retired in 1996 after being regularized on post of Chowkidar). In view ofthe above stated facts the workman seeks direction to the management to reinstate him in service and regularize him in service in view of the said policy decision.

"Whether the action of the Divisional Manager , National Insurance Company Ltd. , Division No.1 , Janpath, New Delhi in terminating/discontinuing Shri Mahesh Thakur , Casual workman from Service w.e.f. 26.11.92without giving him an opportunity for regular employment is justified , legal and valid? If not, what benefits and relief he is entitled to? "

3.The claim is contested by the management by filing reply raising preliminary objections that he has claimed that he had worked as casual worker till November, 1992 . He did not raise any dispute about the termination of his services. Even in his statement of claim filed in the present casehe has neither disputed the legality and/or justification oftermination of his services . The term of reference does not reflect true and correct facts and he has not disclosed any right which has been vested in him for claiming regularization in service of the respondent company . It is further submitted that the workman is not entitled to claim regularization as his services have already been terminated during the year 1992 as stated by him . Even otherwise the claim of regularization is also beyond term of reference and as such workman is not entitled to the relief claimed . Lastly it is stated that the claim suffer from latches and therefore the Government had no jurisdiction to refer a stale dispute .

4. On merits it is stated that averments made in the claim staternent are denied as not correct. It is stated thai 2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman claims that he was appointed on casual basis in the office of the National Insurance Company Ltd. At it Division No.1 , Janpath, New Delhi during 1987 and he continuously worked for the National Insurance Company without any gap upto November , 1992. The National Insurance Company is an Industry as defined under section 2(J) of the I.D. Act and is fully governed by the provisions of the said Act . It is further alleged that the management is considering all the casual labourers who completed 240 days in a year for regularization. The management has taken a policy decision in this regard to regularize the casual labourers who completed 240 days in a year. It is further averred that the workman discharged hisduties efficiently and diligently as a result of which his services were continued from time to time . The management 7649

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

coolers, water filter , hot cases . The work which he had carried out generally used to be of a short duration and not for the full day. It is admitted that some vacancies of Peons , which category also falls in subordinate staff, arose during 1997-98. The peons employed in the Respondent Company do not carry out the work which was carried out by the workman . Such work is carried out by sweepers in the respondent company . The workman , in any case , therefore , couldnotbe considered for regularization . The workman is not entitled to be considered for the post of Peon even if it be assumed that he did the work of sweeper . It is also admitted that the management has called candidates from Employment Exchange and as per recruitment rules of the respondent company. The interpretation placed by the workman on the communication dated 18-2-1998 is absolutely wrong and denied. The requirements laid down in the administrative instructions already have been mentioned above . Workman is not entitled to be considered for regular employment as when the communication dated 18-2-98 was issued or came in to force . The said communication did not relate to sweeper . It is stated that the workman has not worked continuously much less for 5 years . He used to be engaged to carry out the work for short duration as mentioned above . It is denied that the workman is entitled to reinstatement and for regularization 'as alleged. In view of the above facts his claim is false and nay be rejected and the reference may be answered accordingly.

5. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the facts mentioned in the claim statement were reiterated to be correct and controverted please raised in the written statement were refuted .

6. After completion of pleadings both the parties adduced evidence and workman examined himself as WW 1 while the management examined Shri Amiya Kumar, Deputy Manager of the respondent company as MW 1.

7. After closure of the evidence none appeared for the workman and Shri Rajinder Dhawan addressed arguments on behalf of the management . I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised on behalf ofthe management and perused the entire record including the evidence , affidavit of the workman meticulously.

8. The workman has claimed in his claim statement that he was engaged in 1987 and worked till 1992 but in his affidavit furnished in his evidence as WW 1 /A he stated that he has worked as casual labour with the respondent from 1987 till 1997. He claimed that during his cross examination he has stated that by mistake he has written/ mentioned that he has in fact worked upto 1987 though in affidavit it has been mentioned on account of typographical errorthat he had worked upto 1992. MW1 has admitted in his affidavit that the workman has worked /engaged/ appointed from 1987 to 1992 and he did not do work after 1992 and he has not performed any work in February, 1998 the workman was engaged to carry out work which was of casual nature. His engagement generally used to be for short duration and was not for the whole day. His said engagement used to come to an end on completion of the work for which he used to be engaged. It is denied that the workman had worked continuously for the respondent company from 1987 till 1992. Engagement for part time period less than full day does not qualify a person for his having worked for 240 days . The workman has not mentioned the particulars of the policy decision and the averment in this regard is vague , and lacks in necessary particulars and liable to be set aside . The respondent is an authority under article 12 of the constitution of India and is required to follow the Recruitment Rules . The workman was never engaged and/or employed by following the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules . The Company nominates an officer in a Regional Office who is competent tomake appointments . Normally such an officer is a Deputy Manager posted in the concerned Regional Officeand where there are more than one Regional Offices situated in the same city, the nominated officer is empowered tomake appointments for all the Regional Offices situated in the said city. The workman may have been engaged by an officer working in Divisional Office or anybranch office for specific work which was of casual nature . Neither Divisional Manager, Nor Branch Manager had ever been nominated to make appointment . His alleged entry into respondent bank, therefore , was illegal and unauthorized. There is no rule in the respondent company which enjoins upon it to regularize a casual workman on completion of 240 days . However, the Company sometimes had issued some directions in respect of some categories of staff. Such directions were administrative directions and were one time directions. The said directions did not confer any right on the casual labourers to seek regularization . Even under the said directions it was necessary that a casual employee must at the relevant time be in casual employment and that he had completed 240 days in a period of 12 months and also satisfied the conditions and eligibility criteria laid down in the Recruitment Rules . According to the said directions , these persons could be considered alongwith other candidates . Even under the said administrative instructions the Respondent Company was not enjoined upon to regulraise these persons . These persons were required to compete with outside candidates . Since no such instructions were issued in 1992, therefore , the workman had no right to be considered for employment as a regular employee . The question of appointment was dependent upon a vacancy . It is submitted that the respondent company has got its sanctioned strength for each category of employee in respect of each office of the Respondent Company and no recruitment can be made in view of the said sanctioned strength unless there is a vacancy. It is admitted that the workman was engaged to carry out work which purely of temporary and casual nature . It is stated that he was engaged to fill in the water cooler , clean water

2538 GI/06-19 7650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11, 1928

as he was not employed as casual employee in any of company offices . It is an admitted case that the services of the workman were not availed of or terminated and he claims reinstatement and regularisation of his service as he has worked continuously with the company's office as a labourer . It is admitted by the respondents that his services were engaged from 1987 to 1992 but according to WW1 she was engaged on adhoc basis and for doing casual work such as cleaning water cooler and cleaning hot case etc. However, the workman claims reinstatement and regularization . There is nothing on record to show that there existed any temporary or regular post of casual worker in the office of the respondent . The workman has also not whispered a word that his disengagement ( termination his ofservices in 1992 was illegal . However , there is also no evidence on record or averment in pleadings of workman that he was engaged by following a due process of law by competent authority/officer. His engagement can only be termed as of short duration as claimed by respondent for filling water coolers and hot cases etc.etc. There is no evidence on record that the engagement of the workman by the respondent was against any regular or temporary vacancy and that he was appointed in accordance with due process of law or that his disengagement is illegal and as such in my view his claim for reinstatement or reengagement is not tenable in the eye of law. Similarly his claim for regularization is not tenable. In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in a very recent case captioned as Secretary , State of Kamataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(4 )Scale which are as under:

"------- Therefore , consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons the same would not confer any right on the appointee . If it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of the contract if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly , a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment . It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance ............... "

In view of the above discussions workman's claim for reinstatement as well as regularization is held to be not tenable in the eye of law . Workman is not entitled to be reinstated and regularized in his service as claimed by him . As such action of the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Division No.1, Janpath, New Delhi interminating/discontinuing the workman from service

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] w.e.f. 26-11-92without giving him an opportunity for regular employment isjustified , legal and valid and the reference is answered accordingly . File be consigned to record room .

Dated: 25-7-2006

S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3502.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3502.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 137/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA . No. 137/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 [Old Com. No. 91/03 in Reference (I. T. C.) No. 120/99

C. A. Kadia,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002 , ...Complainant

V/ s .

The Director (Personnel /HR ) , ONGC Ltd , Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun -248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Opponent Shd K. V.Gadhia 7651 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

ORDER

conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad Date : 23-08-05 B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ. 3503.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3503. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject-matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service 7652

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

ANNEXURE

REFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. St., L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer

Comm. C.G.I.TA. No. 136/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T.

A. No. 201/04

(Old Comm . No. 90/03 in Reference (1. T. C.) No. 120/99]

Arvind Kishan S. ,

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation;

19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana-384 202

...Complainant

V/ s .

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Suri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension -assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Date : 23-08-05

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old 1.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itis the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to 7653 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

का.आ. 3504.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 135/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3504. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 135/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

PRESENT :

SHRI B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer

Com C. G. 1. T. A. No. 135/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T.

A. No. 201/04 (Old Com . No. 89/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99)

Salim I. Vora

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR), ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun- 248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shd K. V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

4. ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of section 33 of the I.D.. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change ofany service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

PRESENT:

SHRI B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer

Com C. G. L. T. A. No. 119/04 In Reference No. C. G. IL.T. A. No. 201/04

(Old Com . No. 73/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) 6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy . Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order : .

A. S. Parmar, C/oONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384 002

ORDER

...Complainant

V/s.

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan, Dehrandun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES

Ahmedabad:

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Date: 12-07-2005

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Shri K. V: Gadhia

Opponent

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

ORDER

का.आ. 3505.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 119/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025 /10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3505.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 119/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Employers in relation the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006. to

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M)]

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7655

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to'opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege ofthe management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P . The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Lookingto the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3506.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 118/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3506.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 118/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/ 10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

SHRI B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. T. A. No. 118/04 in Reference No. C. G. IL. T. A. No. 201/04 (Old Com. No. 72/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) D.B. Suthar ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384 002, ...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGCLtd. , Telbhavan, Dehrandun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla Complainant :

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

Inview of the fact ofEx. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer Ahmedabad . Date: 21-06-05

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that 7656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may bedisposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint becomes infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of EX. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Date: 21-06-05 Ahmedabad.

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ. 3507. -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 117/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025/ 10/ 2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3507.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 117/04) ofthe Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 ofthe I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not

[No. L-30025/10/2006 - IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. LTA. No. 117/04 In Reference No. C. G. LT.A.

No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 71/03 In Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99] R. L. Patel ,

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002 .

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES ;

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

7657

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Schedule- IV of I.D.Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference No. 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for thediscussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proofof contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management.Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence 1 pass the following order:

ORDUR

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hencethiscomplaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 17-05-2005 Ahmedabad

I. KAZI , Presiding Officer 7658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/ BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3508.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. वो प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिक श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ ।

सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.C. 3:98 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 130/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was eceived by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L - 30025/ 10/2006 - IR ( M ) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

SHRI B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. TA. No. 130/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T.

Α. Νο . 201/04

[Old Com . No. 84/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] N. K. Mudhaliar,

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the written statement .

...Complainant

/s.

TheDirector ( Personnel/HR ),

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Sh . K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the onponent shall not change time bound promotion pin which a workman who completes six years of e one post will get the promotion to next higher post. is the say of the complainant that change of time 4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the 1.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such dernand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent .nent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there willbe change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 21-6-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त , 2006

का.आ. 3509.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 129/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3509.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 129/04 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com/ C .G. I.T/ A. No. 129/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 83/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

7659

सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

K. H. Patel,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s .

TheDirector ( Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shd K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for Electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are tha complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant 7660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3510.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 128/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR(M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALL- CUM -LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected withthe pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer

Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 128/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 82/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99]

Y.V. Rajawadi,

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the Management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

C/ o O.N.G.C. Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Puslepkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , O.N.G.C. Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun- 248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opporfent . Looking the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

Shri R. C. Shukla

ORDER

Complainant :

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable iement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Bence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to Ost.

te: 21-6-2005 medabad .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

का. आ. 3510.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन . जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 128/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

category workman who are involved in the reference. As perthe present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time-bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time-bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change oftime - bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action ofmodifying R. & P. rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the Written Statement. Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension--assumption . The subject- matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there willbe change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint maybe disposed ofaccordingly.

7661

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inviewofthe fact ofEx. 6, the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject-matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 21-6-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3511.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3511.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT :

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), PresidingOfficer Com. C. G. L.TA. No. 127/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 81/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99) K. T. Rajawadi ,

C/o O.N.G.C. Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384002,

...Complainant V/s .

TheDirector(Personnel/HR) , O.N.G.C. Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun-248003

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking

...Opponent 7662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

APPEARANCES :

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Opponent : Shri K. V. Gadhia

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time-bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time- bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case ..

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As perthe present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time- bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time-bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time- bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R.& P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject-matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date : 21-06-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3512.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 126/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3512.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 126/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025 /10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

7663

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.), Presiding Officer Com. C.G. I.TA. No. 126/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT.Α.

No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 80/03 in Reference (LT.C. ) No. 120/99] C. K. Vankar,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002,

-Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248003

-Opponent

APPEARANCES

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

: Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules withoutthe consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/ 50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B ". Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of 1.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4.ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension -assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying tomodify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change ofany service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Lookingto the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy.Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation ofSection 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad.

Date: 21-06-2005

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer 7664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3513.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर ( विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3513.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006 .

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR(M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , PresidingOfficer Com C.G.LT.A. No. 125/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT.A. No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 79/03 in Reference (L.T.C. ) No. 120/99) R.B. Patel,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana - 384 002

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service condition of electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH /50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3.A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun- 248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Sh . K.V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A ofthe Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy , inwhich a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the sayofthe complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not conçerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer Date: 21-6-05

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3514.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 124/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3514.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 124/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , whichwas received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/ 10/2006- IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. L. TA. No. 124/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 78/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] K. T. Patel,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002;

7665

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shd K.V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change tillthe pending of reference case .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

...Complainant

V/s .

The Director (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun- 248003

..Opponent

2538GI/06-21 7666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/ BHADRA 11 , 1928

to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the 1.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence i pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer Date: 21-06-2005

Ahmedabad.

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3515.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3515. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 123/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L - 30025 /10/2006- IR( M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. L. TA. No. 123/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. Α.

No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 77/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] Nandji Singh ,

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002,

...Complainant

V/s .

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun -248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Opponent Shd K. V.Gadhia

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association. The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years, the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman the management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50/ ( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of 1.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of sections 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

7667

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3516.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 122/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.), Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA. No. 122/04 In Referenve No. C. G. LT.A. No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 76/03 in Reference (LT. C. ) No. 120/99) B. P. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384 002 . ...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , O.N.G.C. Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehrandun-248003

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Complainant : Shri R. C. Shukla

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R& P policy.Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence , I pass the following order :

ORDER

In view ofthe fact ofEx. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject-matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost .

Date: 21-06-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त , 2006

का.आ. 3516.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर(विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

ORDER

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. Rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected withthe main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject - matter of present complaints is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/ 99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaints are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege ofthe management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions ofthe complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 ofthe I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence, the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3517.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर(विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3517.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025 / 10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. TA. No. 151/04 In Referenve No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

(OldCom. No. 105/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) J. P. Parmar

C/o O.N.G.C. Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002.

...Complainant

V/s:

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , O.N.G.C. Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehrandun -248003 .

...Opponent APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Opponent

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject- matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad . Date: 21-6-2005

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Shri K.V. Gadhia ORDER

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4.ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected , with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground ofapprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change ofany service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the Management. Hence the present complaint may be 'disposed off accordingly.

7669

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3518.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -30025/10/ 2006 - आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3518.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L- 30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA. No. 107/04 in Reference No. C. G. L. T. Α. No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 61/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) R. J. Zala, C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar, Mahesana -384002. ...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun-248003

...Opponent 7670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

APPEARANCE

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shd K.V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in onepostwill get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4.ByEx: 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law andthe Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inviewofthe fact of EX . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date :23-08-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त , 2006

का.आ. 3519.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 106/04) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3519.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 106/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute employers in relation to the between the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006 .

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR ( M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

7671 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT

AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.), Presiding Officer

Com. C. G. L. TA. No. 106/04 in Reference No. C. G. L. T.

A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 60/03 in Reference (I. T. C.) No. 120/99]

M. N. Raval ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun -248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCE :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence, the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground ofapprehension-assumption. The subject-matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that . the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence , 1 pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence, this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer 2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1)/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of 1.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite partyto 7672

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence, prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

का.आ. 3520.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर(विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4thAugust, 2006

S.O. 3520. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006 .

[No. L -30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. TA. No. 108/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T.

A. No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 62/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

K. R. Patel ,

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002 ,

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector ( Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun -248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Complainant :

Shri R.C. Shukla Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law andthe Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3521.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3521. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 109/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com. C. G. L T. A. No. 109/04 in Reference C. G. LT . A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 63/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] 2538 G1 /06-22

7673

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

S.M. Patel,

C/oONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384002,

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR), ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R. C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.Α. No.201/04 as an old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication.The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R& P rules after completing of six years , he workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action ofmodifying R & Prules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

4.ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has noJurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and 7674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union has not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3522.- In pursuancersuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No.L - 30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. TA. No. 110/04 in Reference C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 [Old Com. No. 64/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) 120/99 ] J. G. Jani ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana - 384002

... Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector ( Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun-248 003

...Opponent APPEARANCE :

Shri R. C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent

Inview of the fact ofEx . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-8-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3522,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी . सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 110/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending ofreference case .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( I )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

का.आ. 3523.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3523. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C .. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law andthe Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer

Com. C. G. L. TA. No. 111/04 In Referenve No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

[OldCom. No. 65/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99] B. A. Kachhia,

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384 002,

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR )

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248003

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent.

...Opponent 7676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006 /BHADRA 11 , 1928

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

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Opponent : Shri K.V. Gadhia

ORDER

union . It is the privilege of the management to change of anyrule. It isdenied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the 1.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement ,

का.आ. 3524.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3524. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 112/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006 .

[No. L - 30025/10/2006 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , PresidingOfficer Com C. G. L. TA. No. 112/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A.

No. 201/04

[OldCom. No. 66/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] R. S. Patel ,

C/oONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , 19 , Pashpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002 ,

7677

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

...Complainant

V/s .

The Director (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGCLtd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun-248 003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Complainant : Shri R. C. Shukla

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A ofthe Industrial Dispute Act , Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the sayofthe complainant that change oftime bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical categoryworkman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/ ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied 4.By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of sections 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inviewofthe fact ofEx . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date:23-08-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer 7678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

का.आ. 3525.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 113/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3525.-In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 113/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA. No. 113/04 In Referenve No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 67/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

D. H. Panchal ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pashpkunj Society; Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002 ,

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director ( Personnel /HR),

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan , Dehrandun - 248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCE :

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Opponent Shd K. V. Gadhia

ORDER

4. ByEx . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of anyrule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence , the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy.Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject- matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer Date: 17-05-2005

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3526.- औद्योगिक्र विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 103/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025 / 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3526. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006-1R(M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

SHRI B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 103/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T.

A. No. 201/04 (OidCom. No. 57/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99)

7679

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

R. N. Vashi ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana-384 002,

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehrandun -248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change oftime bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence, prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. Rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The Management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. & P. rules after completing six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/ ( 1 )/2002 ơn 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9-A and Schedule- IV of 1.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension-assumption . The subject-matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. Regulations and the union has not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management .Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy . Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence, I pass the following order:

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] NewDelhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3527. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 120/04 in Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04 (Old Com . No. 74/03 in Reference (LT . C.) No. 120/99) A. K. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002,

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun -248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject- matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer Date : 23-8-2005

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3527.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कैन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act , Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence, prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. Rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a Old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R. & P. Rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As perthe present R. & P. Rules after completing of six years , 7681 भारत का राजपन्न: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hencethis complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date:21-06-2005 Ahmedabad. B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service conditionofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliationofficer vide file No.RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotionpolicy is change of service condition as per section 9-A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ. 3528.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 105/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3528.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/04 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT:

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the WrittenStatement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law andtheHon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension -assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bytheopponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the manamanagement to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 ofthe I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer

ComC.G.I. TA. No. 105/04 In Reference No. C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04

[OldCom. No.59/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] B. T. Paija,

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management .Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

Mahesana -384002

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , ...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun- 248003

...Opponent 6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy . Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent.

2538 GI/06-23 7682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2005/BHADRA 11 , 1928

APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union has not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management.Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R& P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inviewofthe fact of EX . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date:23-08-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3529. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डैविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3529.- In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 121/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

7683 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

StaffAssociation and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), PresidingOfficer

Com C.G.LT.A. No. 121/04In Reference No. C.G.LT.Α.

No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 75/03 in Reference (L. T.C. ) No. 120/99 ]

M. D. Upadhyay,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384002

...Complainant

V/s .

The Director ( Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

4.ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, inwhich aworkman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx. 6, the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 21-06-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer 2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a Old I. T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C, trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association. The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of 1.D. Act , 1947. Thus it its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied 7684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3530.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 152/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -30025/ 10/ 2006- आई आर( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3530.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 152/04 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O.N.G.C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR(M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com C.G.I.T.A. No. 152/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT. Α . No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 106/03 in Reference (I.T.C. ) No. 120/99 ] J. H. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCE

Complainant Shri R. C. Shukla

Opponent Shri K. V. Gadhia :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, inwhich a workman who completes six years of service in one postwill get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say ofthe complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that 4.By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

7685 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

V/s.

TheDirector(Personnel/HR) ,

ONGCLtd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent 5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly.

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject-matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time- bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time- bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

का.आ. 3531 :-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 144/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3531. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 144/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006-IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer

Com. C. G. L TA. No. 144/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 98/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

C. J. Shah,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employess in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-30025 /10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT:

of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the 1.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

Shri B. 1. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , PresidingOfficer Com. C. G. LTA. No. 143/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 97/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] K. A. Modhia ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed of accordingly .

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence 1 pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject- matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त , 2006

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time-bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time- bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

का.आ. 3532.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 143/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3532. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 143/04)

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that tire Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.Α. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition ofElectrical category workmanwho are involved inthe reference. As per the present R. &P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotiontonext higher post and it is the time- bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time-bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act. The complainant is not concemed workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground ofapprehension - assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-8-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

7687

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3533.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 142/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/ 2006 आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3533. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 142/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.), Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. Τ . Α. No. 142/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 [Old Com. No. 96/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99] K. A. Gohil, C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002 .. ...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun- 248003 .

Complainant Opponent ...Opponent : APPEARANCES Shri R.C. Shukla Shri K. V. Gadhia ORDER

7688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as an old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules withoutthe consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of electrical categoryworkman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itis the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention ofchange of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the managementto change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint maybe disposed ofaccordingly.

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii ) ] 6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date:23-8-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3534.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 141/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर (विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3534.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 141/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy、

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 141/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 95/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] S.R. Parmar ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002 ,

...Complainant 7689 भारत का राजपत्र :

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR ) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCE

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-8-2005

Ahmedabad .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ 3535.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 140/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006 4.By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint 'isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption. The subject matter

S.O. 3535.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/04) 2538 GI/06-24 7690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L -30025 / 10/2006 - IR (M) ]

B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com . C. G. I. TA. No. 140/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. Τ.

A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 94/03 in Reference (1. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] C. C. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana - 384 002 .

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite partyto desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions tillthe Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

... Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun -248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R. C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say ofthe complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itis the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption. The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management .Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Date:23-8-2005 Ahmedabad.

B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer 7691 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ 3536.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 139/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3536. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 139/04 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .

PRESENT:

Shri B. 1. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. T. A. No. 139/04 in Referenve No. C. G. L. T. A.

No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 93/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

J. P. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana - 384 002,

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun -248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Complainant Shri R.C. Shukla

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

4.ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law andthe Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of anyrule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] [Old Com . No. 92/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] V. A. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

...Complainant Mahesana -384 002,

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehrandun -248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent

In view of the fact ofEx. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-05

Ahmedabad .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3537,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 138/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3537.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of O. N. G. C. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L.M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. T. A. No. 138/04 in Referenve No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is perniding before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I. T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itisthe time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IVof 1.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

7693

भारत का राजपन्न : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

NewDelhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3538.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 131/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was receivedbythe Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID ,Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. L. T. A. No. 131/04in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04 [OldCom. No. 85/03 in Reference (I. T. C.) No. 120/99] A. D. Karaliya,

Mahesana -384002

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , ...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan,

Dehrandun- 248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date : 23-08-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3538.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section33A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy , inwhich a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the sayofthe complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending ofreference case .

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date : 12-07-05 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ. 3539.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 133/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3539.- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 133/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O.N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006 .

[No. L -30025 /10/2006 -IR (M ) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 133/04 In Reference No. C. G. 1. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 87/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] F. M. Belim ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR ) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan , Dehradun- 248003 .

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy: Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking

...Opponent [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

APPEARANCES :

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Opponent : Shri K. V. Gadhia

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be orderedto desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.Α. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The actionwill change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itis the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

7695

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

anyrule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and, their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management .Hence the present complaint may bedisposed offaccordingly.

6. Lookingto the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer Date: 12-07-05 Ahmedabad.

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ 3540.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 134/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3540.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 134/04). of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C .; and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

7696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 134/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T.

A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 88/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] V. N. Patel,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R. C. Shukla

Complainant

Opponent Shri K. V. Gadhia :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.

"י

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

4. ByEx . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint isill- founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer Date: 12-07-05 Ahmedabad .

7697 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

Act, for illegal termination of service during the pendency of reference .

का.आ. 3541.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 313/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

2. The brief facts are that the Central Government vide order dated 2-4-1997 referred the dispute to the Tribunal (I.T.C. ) No. 11/97. The reference was for 258 workmen. The name of the complainant appears at Sr. 117 . list ofthe workman . The complainant has been working as a typist in TBG section of O.N.G.C. , Ahmedabad since 1-1-1992 . The opponent did not provide work to the complainant w.e.f. 21-7-1997 . The complainant met the officers , but he was never taken back . The complainant is unemployed and the opponent had employed new persons . Complainant is directly connected workman and the services are terminated. Even though there is a stay against the termination . Thus opponent have contravened the provisions of Section 33 (1 ) of the I.D. Act . The category of typist is prohibited by notification on 8-4-1994 opponent not is a real employer. Thus by para 13 he prays for the relief.

S.O. 3541. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 313/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L -30025/ 10/2006- IR (M )] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 313/04 (Old Com. No. 20/98)

Patel Ashwin P. ,

C/oGujarat Petroleum Employees Union , 436/46 , Gandhivas , Koba Road, Sabarmati ,

Ahmedabad-380 005

...Complainant

V/s.

3.A notice was issued to the opponent to file a reply ofthe complaint. The opponent No. 2 has filed a reply by Ex. 15. The brief facts are that the corporation has not contravened and provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable . The complainant is not a concerned workman . The alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. The relation of muster and servant is not there and the complainant is not the workman . The averments in his paras 1 to 6 ofthe complaint are not true and denied . It is denied that the opponent did not provide the work to the complainant w.e.f. 21-7-1997. The averments made in paras 7to 13 are not true and denied . It is denied that the category of typist is prohibited category for appointment as a contract labour. It is denied that, O.N.G.C. is a real employer . Applicant is not entitled to get reinstatement with full back wages. The main reference is not decided. The complainant wasemployed by the contractor namely Parisharm Labour Co-op. Societies . It is a baseless that his services was dis- continued by O.N.G.C. Thus it is prayed that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayer for and the complaint is required to be dismissed with cost .

4. By Ex. 16 the union withdraw the authority and submitted a letter dated 3-10-2004.

1. Parisharm Labour Co. Op . Soc. , 19 , Sahajanand Centre, Shahibaug Ahmedabad-4

2.GroupGeneral Manager,

ONGC Avani Bhavan , Sabarmati , Ahmedabad

...Opponent

APPEARANCE

5. Thought proper opportunity was given to prove the case, the complainant did not remain present for the prosecution. Thus he failed to prove the facts stated in the complaint . Looking to this facts the complainant is not entitled to get any relief for want of prosecution . Thus I hereby pass the following order:

(Absent)

Complainant :

ORDER

: Shri K.V. Gadhia,

Opponent

Shri Mahendra K. Patel

ORDER

Thecomplainant is dismissed for default for want of prosecution . No order as to cost.

Date: 12-10-2005

Ahmedabad .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer I. The complainant has filed this complaint in ( 1.T.C. ) No. 11/97 under Section 33 - A of the Industrial Disputes

2538 GI/06-25 7698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006 /BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3542, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3542. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 150/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR (M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal , C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as an old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition of electrical categoryworkman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3.A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. L. T. A. No. 150/04 in Reference C. G. I. T. A.

No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 104/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

S. R. Verma,

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pashpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002 .

... Complainant

V/s .

TheDirector (Personnel/HR ) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun- 248 003

...Opponent

APPEARANCE :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Complainant Opponent

ORDER

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change ofany service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

7699

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence, the present complaint maybe disposed offaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence , I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject, matter of the complaint . Hence , this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Date: 23-08-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3543.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 149/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3543.- In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 149/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT AT

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. L. T. A. No. 149/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 103/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] K.E.Nagarkar,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, Mahesana -384002,

19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , ...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehrandun-248 003

...Opponent APPEARANCE :

Shri R.C. Shukla Complainant :

Shri K. V.Gadhia

: Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence, prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change tillthe pending ofreference case.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence, the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject-matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence, the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence, I pass the following order :

ORDER

In view of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence, this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Date : 23-8-2005

Ahmedabad .

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3544.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 148/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

1-1

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3544.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 148/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA. No. 148/04 in Reference No. C. G. LT.A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 102/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] K. M. Johny, C/o ONGC Electrical and Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society , Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana - 384 002 . ...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248 003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Complainant :

Shri R.C. Shukla Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence, prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost. Ahmedabad...

Date: 23-8-2005 B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006 per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention ofchange of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite partyto dlesist for any action of modifying Rand Prules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied SitaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ.3545.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय संरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआं था ।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3545. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMEENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. 1. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , PresidingOfficer 4. ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has riot contravened any provisions of sections 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not cornnected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Com. C.G.LT A. No. 132/04 in Referenve No. C. G. LT. Á. No. 201/04 (OldCom. No. 86/03 in Reference (L. T. C. ) No. 120/99 )

R. J. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002 . ...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun-248003.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking

...Opponent 7702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

APPEARANCES

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla .

Shri K. V. Gadhia .

Opponent :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 - A of the Industrial Dispute Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time-bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itisthe time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & Prules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii) ] the management is tryingto modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention ofSection 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad . Date: 12-7-2005

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त2006

का.आ. 3546. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 147/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर(विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3546.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 147/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR ( M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 147/04 in Reference, C. G. I. T. Α.

No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 101/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] R. B. Raval ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mahesana-384 002

7703

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference No. 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan, Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla.

Complainant

Shri K. V.Gadhia.

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 33 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time-bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time- bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.

2. The brief facts of the complainant are that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical &Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service condition of Electrical categoryworkmen who are involved in the reference .As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it isthe time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through Conciliation Officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time-bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule IV of I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the 4.ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law andthe Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject -matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service condition of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject - matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Offic 7704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3547.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 146/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006 आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3547.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 146/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

PRESENT:

Shri B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer

Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 146/04 in Reference C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 100/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ]

N. R. Patel , C/ o ONGC Electrical and Allied Staff Association,

19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002 .

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun- 248 003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension -assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition .

11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. During the course of adjudication the presentative of the complainant submitted a purshis by x. 6 and it is stated , that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is'no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEx . 6, the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Date: 23-08-2005

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3548.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947.( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 145/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं..एल -30025 / 10/2006--आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3548.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 145/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. 1. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C.G. I.Τ.Α. No. 145/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. Τ.Α.

No. 201/04 [Old Com. No. 99/03 in Reference (I.T.C. ) No. 120/99] 2538 G1/06-26

7705

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

N.R. Patel,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector(Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCE :

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4. Ву Ех. 5 орроnent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and 7706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-8-2005

Ahmedabad .

B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3549.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 177/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/281/2002- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डैस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] NewDelhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3549.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 177/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Govinda Sub Area of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , and their workman, received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 22012/281 /2002 -IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO . CGIT /LC /R/177/03

SHRIC . M. SINGH, Presiding Officer:

..Workman/Union TheExecutive Committee Member, Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC), Near Panchayati Mandir , Shahdol

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

Govinda Sub Area of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , Po Kotma, Distt . Shahdol (MP) ...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of July, 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/281 /2002- IR(CM - II) dated 8-12-2003 has referred the following disputefor adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of SECL in imposing punishment of withhelding of two increments of Smt . Rekha Singh was legal and justified? If not, to what relief she is entitled to ? " 2. Inspite of sufficient service of notice on the Executive Committee member , Samyukta Koyla Mazdoor Sangh (AITUC) , Near Paanchayati Mandir , Shahdol , MP, the Union/workman Smt . Rekha Singh failed to put in appearance before this tribunal and to file statement of claim, therefore vide order dated 28-3-05 of this tribunal , thisreference proceeding proceeded exparte against the Union/workman .

3. The case of management ( Sub Area Manager Govinda Sub Area of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , PO Kotma, Distt . Shahdol ( MP) in brief is as follows . That workman Smt . Rekha Singh was working as Dainik Mazdoor inGovinda dispensary of Govinda Sub -Area of SECL , Kotma . That on 30-11-99 at about 4.00 PM , she along with her husband Shri Dinesh Singh went to the hospital premises and Smt. Krishna Devi Dresser was abused in filthy language and assaulted her during duty hours . The [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

said incident was reported by the victim Smt . KrishnaDevi . Accordingly workman Smt . Rekha Singh was issued with a chargesheet under clause 26.18 and 26.22 of the Standing Orders. The workman submitted reply denying charges . As the reply was found unsatisfactory, the competent authority decided to conduct the Departmental enquiry . Accordingly vide order No. 615 dated 17-11-99 Shri V. D. Bhide , the then Personnel Manager , Govinda Colliery was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri V.K.Badgaiya , Sr. Under Manager was appointed as management's representative . The Enquiry Officer issued memo of enquiry for the date of hearing of enquiry. During the course ofDE, the workman availed the services of coworker Shri S.N.Singh, Sr. clerk, Jamuna Kotma Area. The DE was conducted legally, properly and following the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the charge/ sheeted employee guilty of charges . The entire departmental proceedings were placed before the Competent Authority who has gone through the same and satisfied that the enquiry , was conducted legally and properly and the C.S.E. has availed full opportunity of defending her case . Consequently the competent authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and charges levelled against her stands proved . Both the charges proved against her was enough to impose punishment of dismissal from services. Her case was leniently considered and she was given minor punishment by imposing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide office order No. 1379 dated 11-1-2000 . Workman Smt . Rekha Singh was regularised as clerk vide office order No. 3095 dated 30-12-2000 . It is prayed by the management that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of withholding 2 increments of Smt. Rekha Singh be held legal , proper and justified and accordingly the award be passed in favour ofthe management.

4. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of their witness Shri A. K. Roy , the then working asPersonnel Manager in SECL, Jamuna and Kotma area .

5. I have heard Shri A.K.Shashi , Advocate , the learned counsel for the management and perused the evidence on record.

6. The case of the management is fully proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri A. K. Roy who was then working as Personal Manager in SECL , Jamuna and Kotma area . As the case proceeded exparte against the workman , no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the workman.

7. Inview of the above , the reference deserves to be answered in favour of the management and against the workman. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that parties be directed to bear their own costs of this reference .

8. The reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman holding that the

7707

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

action ofmanagement of SECL in imposing punishment of withholding' 2 increments of Smt . Rekha Singh was legal and justified and consequently she is not entitled to any relief. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference .

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3550.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्टं औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 161/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/ 12/2001 आई आर ( सी- II ) ? अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3550.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161/ . 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Amiai O.C M. ofSECL, and their workman , received by, the Centrai Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L- 22012/ 12/2001 - IR (C - II) )

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/R/ 161/02

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI C. M. SINGH The Secretary,

M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS ), Sohagpur Area of SECL, At/PODhanpuri ,

Workman/Union Shahdol

Versus

Management The Sub Area Manager , Amlai O.C.M of SECL, PO Amlai O.C.M, Shahdol .

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of July-2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/12/ 2001 - IR (C - II ) dated 7708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2,2006 /BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 9-12-02 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager , Amlai O.C.M of SECL, PO Amlai , distt . Shahdol ( MP) in not giving notional seniority to Shri Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava , Dumper Operator , Group -A Amlai O.C.M w.e.f. 4-5-94 is legal and justified? If not, to whatreliefhe is entitled to ? "

2. In spite of sufficient service of notice on the Secretary, M P Koyla Mazdoor Sabha ( HMS ) , sohagpur Area of SECL , At/ PO Dhanpuri Shahdol , no statement of claim has been filed on behalfof workman/Union . Therefore vide order dated 28-3-05 of this tribunal , the case proceeded exparte against the workman/ Union.

Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant Singh were given promotion from Dumper Operator Excv.Group -B to Dumper Operator Excv.Group-A vide office order No. 109 dated 2- 5-94 That the workman submitted representation on 19-10- 94 claiming notional seniority w.e.f. 4-5-94. The management vide letter No. 3334 dated 3-2-95, having examined his case regarding the notional seniority informed him that his representation will be considered on merit for giving notional seniority in Dumper Operator Grade A after his regularisation on the above post. The case of workman was considered for deployment in the 50 Tones Dumper and after one year, his case was also considered for promotion to the post of Dumper Operator Grade -A . On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee , the workman Shri Chandra Shekhar Srivastava, DumperOperator Grade B of Amlai has been promoted to the post ofDumper Operator group -A vide order No. SECL/ PD/ AOCM/98 / 64/669 dated 3-3-98 and he was also given notional seniority w.e.f. 31-3-96 and the same was communicated to him vide letter No. SECL/PD /1127/ 98 / 601 dated 10-11/ 4/98 . The promotion of Dumper Operator , Group-BtoGroup-A is done as per the job nomenclature/ jobdescription Cadre scheme as given below :

" A highly skilled workman possessing not less than 8 years experience in operation of heavy duty highway dumpers of Coal Haulers of which is must have 3 years experience in next below grade i.e. in grade "B " . He will operate such equipment of a capacity of 45 tones and above . He should have general knowledge of the mechanism of the equipment and should undertake minor maintenance and running repairs . We should hold valid License endorsed for driving Heavy duty Vehicle ( IINo . 16 dt. 22-2-84. )"

4. As per job description and nomenclature for promotion of Dumper Operator Group B to A is required the experience of operation of 50 tones dumper/machine . Shri Chandra Sekhar Shrivastava had not operated the 50 tones dumper before his joining at Amlai OCM i.e. 24-1-95. Hence his case for promotion from Group-B to A does not arise due to non-operating of 50 tones Dumper. The management has given him notional seniority for promotion ofDumper Operator Group -B to A w.e.f. 31-3-96 . At the time of promotion of Shri Mohd. Abdal and Shri Sant Singh to the post of Dumper Operator , Excv. Group -A as on 1-5-94 Shri Chandra Sekhar Shrivastava was not on roll of Amlai OCM. Hence the question of considering his case forpromotiondoes not arise . The promotion from the post ofDumperOperator Grade B to A is unit level post as per the seniority list of the project . When Shri Chandra . Sekhar Shrivastava was not working in Amlai OCM/Unit his demand for notional seniority from the date of promotion ofothers belonging to Amlai OCM is not justified and is contrarytopromotion policy. Thus the claim made by Shri Chandra Sekhar Shrivastava is neither legal nor justified and is liable to be rejected.

3. The management filed their Written Statement . Their case in brief is as follows . Shri Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava is working as Dumper Operator , Grade -A at Amlai OCM of SECL , Sohagpur Area w.e.f. 4-5-94 . The Union has raised the dispute claiming notional seniority to Shri Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava , Dumper: Operator Grade-A w.e.f. 4-5-94 whereas the dispute has been raised only in the year 2002 i.e. after a lapse of 8 years . The claim istherefore highly belated . Seniority cannot be claimed after a lapse of several years as it will effect the career of other employees once the seniority has been settled amongst the employees the same cannot be taken after a lapse of several years , as it will create an industrial unrest amongst the employees . On this ground alone , the present dispute is not maintainable . Workman Shri Chandra Shekhar Shrivastava has already been granted notional seniority w.e.f. 31-3-96. There exists no ground on the part of the workman to claim notional seniority w.e. f. 4-5-94 . It seems that the claim is based on comparison with other workers namely Shri Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant Singh . The workman has claimed notional seniority comparing his case with the case of Shri Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant Singh . The workman cannot compare his case with Shri Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant Singh as their date of appointment , seniority, further promotion of the workman as well as Shri Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant singh are different . On the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee , the workman along with others working as Dumper Operator Grade C at Dhanpuri OCM and Sharda OCP was given promotion to the post of Dumper Operator Grade-B w.e.f. 11-4-89 vide office order No. 91 / 111/80 dated 15-1-91 . Shri Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant Singh have been promoted as dumper operator , Excv.Grade- A vide office Order No. SECL/ SAM/ AOCM/49 /94/ 1 04 dated 2-4-94 w.e.f. 1-5-94 . At that time Shri Chandra Sekhar Srivastava was not on the roll of Amlai OCM. That vide office order No. 3242dated 21-1-95 , the workman concemed wastransferred from Sharda OCP to Amlai OCM . The DPC, vide their report recommended Shri Mohammed Abdal and Shri Sant Singh to the post of Dumper Operator Excv .Group- A. As per the recommendations of the DPC , Shri 7709

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit ofShri Charan Singh , the then working as SAM in SECL, Shahdol area .

6. The management has also filed Photostat copies ofthe certain documents , but those Photostat copies have not been proved in accordance with the law of evidence and therefore, cannot be read in evidence.

7. 1 have heard Shri A.K.Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management and perused the evidence on record.

8. The case of the management is fully established and provedfrom the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri Charan Singh , the then working as SAM in SECL , Sohagpur area .

9.Against the above , as the , case proceeded exparte against the workman/Union there is no evidence on record onbehalf ofworkman/Union .

10.. In view of the above , the reference deserves to be answered in favour ofthe management and against the workman/Union . Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the parties should be directed to bear their own costs of this reference.

11. The reference is answered in favour of the management holding that the action of Sub Area Manager , Amiai O. C. M of SECL , PO Amlai , distt . Shahdol (MP) in not giving notional seniority to Shri Chandra shekhar Shrivastav, Dumper Operator, Group-AAmlai O.C.Mw.e.f. 4-5-94 is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. The parties shall hear their own costs of this reference .

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 4 अगस्त2006

का.आ. 3551. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. कै प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/ 121/2001- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006

S.O. 3551.- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jamuna U.G.R.O. of SECL , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L-22012/ 121 /2001 - IR (C- II)] AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR :

CASE NO . CGIT/LC/R/78/02

PRESIDINGOFFICER : SHRIC.M. SINGH The Dy. General Secretary(C)

R.C.W. F, Jamuna U.G.Branch , Shahdol ..

Workman/Union

Versus

The Sub areaManager,

Jamuna U.G.R.O of SECL , PO Jamuna, Shahdol .

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of July, 2006 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/121 /2001 - IR( C -II) dated 28-5-02 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the sub Area Manager , Jarnuna UGRO of SECL, PO Jamuna colliery of SECL , distt . Shahdol (MP) in not regularizing shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, GeneralMazdoor to explosive issuer, whereas he is working since 1993 is legal and justified? If not, to whatrelief the workman is entitled ?

2.TheDy.General Secretary, R.C. W. F, Jarnuna U. G. Branch, Shahdol failed to file statement of claim on behalf ofworkman Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra inspite of sufficient service of notice on him . Therefore vide order dated 28-3-05 of this tribunal , the reference proceeded exparte against the workman/Union .

3. The Sub Area Manager , Jamuna UGRO of SECL , PO Jamuna, Shahdol filed their written statement. 'Their case inbriefisas follows . The terms ofreference are vague and contrary to the facts of the case . That the appropriate government has exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the disputed question as to "Whereas he is working since 1993 as explosive issuer " . The workman has claimed the post of explosive issuer since 1993 whereas the dispute was raised in the year 2002 after the lapse of several years . Therefore the dispute is highly helated and the same is not not maintainable. The workman shri Surendra Kumar Mishra was initially appointed as General Mazdoor Category- 1 at Jammu U/G Mine . While he was working as time rated employee, he was employed in clerical job . The workman along with others were therefore regularized as clerk 7710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

Grade III in the scale of pay of Rs . 3545-87-5111 ofNCWA- VI vide confirm order No. 337 dated 30-4-02 . Further to the office order No. 337 , the workman along with others also has been regularised as clerk Gr - III have been granted seniorityw.e.f. 30-12-2000 i.e. at par with the date in which . 11 TR employees were regularised . The workman is working as clerk Gr - III . The workman was neither appointed nor deployed as explosive issuer against any sanctioned or vacant post . He might have been authorised to look after the job of explosive issuer in the absence of clerk temporarily, that does not give him a right to hold the said post . The workman was working as General Mazdoor as in 1993 , as the claim made by him for regularization to the postof explosive issuer since 1993 is illegal , unjustified and incorrect and therefore the reference is liable to be answered in positive as the same has no merits .

4. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit or Shri R. K. Prusty, the then working as Sr. P. O in SECL . , Jamuna and Kotma Area .

5. The management has also filed certain Photostat copies of the documents but those Photostat copies have not been proved in accordance with law of evidence and therefore they cannot be read in evidence .

6. 1 have heard Shri A.K.Shashi , Advocate for the management and perused the evidence on record.

7. The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of their witness Shri R. K. Prusty. As the case proceeded ex-parte against the workman/Union and no statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the workman, there is no evidence on record for proving the case of the workman/ Union .

8. In view of the above , the reference deserves to be answered in favour of the management and against the workman/Union. Keeping into consideration the facts and circumstances ofthe case , I am of the view that the parties be directed to bear their own costs of this reference .

9. The reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman /Union holding that the Sub Area Manager, Jamuna URGO of SECL, PO Jamuna Colliery of SECL, Distt. Shahdol (MP) in not regularizing Shri Surendra Kumar Mishra, General Mazdoor to explosive issuer , whereas he is working since 1993 is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference .

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

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त2006

का.आ. 3552.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/47/1998- आई आर (सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th August , 2006

S.O. 3552.- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L- 22012 /47/ 1998 - IR ( C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

CASE NO. CGIT/LC/, R/ 40/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI C.M. SINGH

Workman/Union TheArea Secretary , INMOSSA , Pench Area, INMOSSA Bhavan , Durga Chowk , Shivpuri , PO Sirgora , Chhindwara (MP) .

Versus

TheManager,

Eklehra Colliery, WCL , PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) Chhindwara

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 21st day of July- 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/47 /98-1R(CM- II ) dated 24-29/ 12/1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Eklehra Colliery of WCL, Distt. Chhindwara in transferring Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia , overman from Eklehra Colliery to Thisgora/Mathani Group of WCL, PenchArea, Parasia w.e.f. 15-11-1996 is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. The case of workman Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia/Union in brief is as follows . That workman Shri Shiv Shankar Lal chourasia was initially appointed on the postofMining Sirdar in the year 1980 and was posted at Eklehra Colliery. While he was in service , he qualified himself for the post of overman by appearing in the overman [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7711

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Certificate examination conducted by the Board ofMining Examination, Dhanbad in the year 1987. Accordingly he was promoted to the post of overman in the year 1989 .

Limited, Nagpur for cancellation of his transfer order and his retention at Eklehra Colliery. In the said representation, hehad requested that since he is Branch President of the Union, also a workman Inspector and. Rescue Trainee, therefore, his transfer from Eklehra Colliery to Rawanwara colliery is not only Illegal but also an act of colourable exercise ofpowers . He also stated that the transfer order is made on the malafide intention and, therefore, requested to cancel the transfer order. The workman is President of INMOSSA Union and is protected workman under Sec- 33(3) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 61 of the Industrial Dispute ( Central ) rules . No protected workman can be transferred unless an approval has been sought bythe Central Union. In his case , no such approval hasbeen sought from the Central Union , therefore transfer order is bad and illegal . The workman was nominated as workman inspector under Rule 29(Q) of the Mines Rules 55. A workman inspector nominated under sub - rule( 1 ) shall, unless he resigns from his office cannot be transferred to any other place in violation of the rules . But the management in violation of the said rules transferred the workman to Rawanwara area . That the root cause of transferring the workman from Eklehra to Rawanwara is due to annoyance by the management for workman's Union activities. The workman has represented his entire matter to the Union as well as to the management of WCL, but in spiteof representation made , no action has been initiated and he has been forced to join at Rawanwara Sub-Area under protest . It is, therefore , prayed that the action of management of Eklehra Colliery of WCL , Distt. Chhindwara intransferringthe workman , overman from Eklehra Colliery to Thisgara/Mathani group and posting him at Rawanwara colliery is unjustified and his transfer order be set aside andthe management ofWCL be directed to re -transfer him from Rawanwara group to Eklehra Colliery.

3. The management filed their Written Statement. Their case in brief is as follows . That Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia is an employee of WCL, Pench Area . He was working as overman in Eklehra Colliery. The management of Pench Area started a new project namely Thisgara/ Mathani group . The Eklehra colliery as well as this project are situated within a radius of 50 Kms . Due to administrative reason, the management has decided to transfer manpower from Eklehra Colliery to the new project as per requirement. Themanagement has its own transfer policy for the transfer ofemployees from one unit to another . The said policy was decided and approved by the joint Co-ordination Committee ofthe area. The said joint Co- ordination Committee of the area consisted the representatives of all operating Trade Unions in the said area. Transfer has been made as per the approved transfer policy. Since Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasiawas the junior most overman , he was transferred to Thisgara/Mathani group as per above transfer policy vide order No. 1754 dated 28-9-96 . Later on as per verbal discussion with the representatives of INMOSSA he was That workman Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia was elected asBranch President of the Indian National Mines Overman Sirdar Shortfires Association in the year 1994 which is a registered Trade Union duly registered under the India Trade Union's Act bearing registration No. 3887. That the workman being President of the Branch , is protected workman under sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and his rights are protected under the Act. Apart from this , he is a workman inspector under Sec- 29 ( 2 ) of the Mines Rules 1955 and under the said mines rules , he has to see the safety of the roof and other duties , and, therefore under sub - rule ( 7) and (8 ) of Rule 29 of the Mines rules is entitled to hold the office for a period of3 years from the date of his nomination. He was nominated as workman inspector on 31-12-95 effective from 18-11-95 . He is also rescue trainee urnider Rule 18 of the Mines Rescue rules 1985 and under the rules , in every. collierythere must be 5 rescue trainees which is mandatory. Since at Eklehra colliery there were only5 rescue trainees, therefore, he could not have been transferred to other place. But on 28-9-95 some 53 employees working in Eklehra colliery including the workman were transferred to other mines. However for reasons best known to the management, this transfer order was not given effect to the overmans andMining Sirdars . However, again on 1-11-96, the workman along with one Shri Mohan Kamlesh was transferred to Rawanwara sub Area and he was advised to report for duties at sub Area Manager, Rawanwara Group. That prior to second transfer, the workman represented the entire matter to the management on 12-10-96 informing that since he is Branch President of Indian National Mines Overman Sirdar Shortfires Association , he is a protected workman. He also informed that since he has been designated as workman inspector under rule 29 (Q) of the Mines Rules , 1955 and also a rescue Trainee under the Mines Rescue rules 1985 , therefore , he cannot be transferred to other collieries . But in spite of representation, the management transferred him to Rawanwara sub Area. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, he raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chhindwara (MP) on 9-1-97. Since the Assistant Labour Commissioner could not complete the conciliation proceedings in due time , therefore the workman had no other alternative except to join at Rawanwara and accordingly he joined at Rawanwara colliery on 23-2-97 under protest. The Assistant Labour Commissioner in spite of sending failure report to the Government, closed the case and therefore the workman had to rush to the High Court by way of filing a writ petition bearing No. 1214/1997 and by virtue of the orders of the Honourable High Court dated 11-9-97, the Government has referred the present dispute before this Tribunal . The workman prior to joining at Rawanwara group had made an appeal to the General Manager ( IR), Western Coalfields 7712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

5. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of Shri Sakal Dev Yadav, the then working as Manager at WCL , Pench Area .

6. The management has also filed Photostat copies ofcertain documents on record but those Photostat copies have not been proved in accordance with law of evidence and therefore they cannot be read in evidence .

7. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate , the learned counsel for the management . I have very carefully gone through the evidence on record . The case of the management is fully established and proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of Shri Sakal Dev Yadav, the then working as Manager at WCL, Pench Area.

8. The workman/Union failed to adduce evidence . Therefore vide order dated 1-6-05, the case proceeded exparte against the workman/ Union . Thus there is no evidence on record of the workman/Union .

9. In view of the above , the reference deserves to be answered in favour of the management and against the workman/Union . But considering the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the opinion that the parties should be directed to bear their own costs of this reference .

10. The reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman holding that the action ofthe management of Eklehra Colliery of WCL, distt . Chhindwara in transferring Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia, overman from Eklehra Colliery to Thisgara/Mathani Group ofWCL, Pench Area , Parasia w.e.f. 15-11-1996 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference .

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

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3553.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऐस. ई . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 196/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/266/1986 आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 4th August , 2006 transferred to near by mine of Rawanwara instead of Thisgara/Mathani vide office order dated 1-11-96 . Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia was the President ofINMOSSA branch , Eklehra and President of INMOSS A isnot a protected workman under transfer policy . Being the junior most overman , Shri Shankar Lal Chourasia was transferred on administrative ground . The management taking into consideration the norms of transfer policy has rightly transferred Shri Shiv Shankar Lal Chourasia from Eklehra Colliery. As such his transfer cannot be treated as illegal transfer as alleged by INMOSSA. Shri M.P.Mishra, General Secretary of INMOSSA made an application dated 9-1-97 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Chhindwara alleging illegal transfer of Shri S.S.Chourasia . Shri S. K. Banerjee , Area Personnel Manager , Pench replied to the ALC(C ) Chhindwara in response to ALC's endorsement No. CHA - I (Gen.)/ 96 dated 14-1-97 vide letter No. WCL/ Pench/P/23/348/97 . The ALC( C) Chhindwara vide letterNo. CHA - 1 (Gen )/97 dated 31-1-97 replied to the General Secretary, INMOSSA, Pench Area closing the case . Shri S.S.Chourasia filed writ petition in the High Court , Jabalpur and on 3-9-97 an order was passed by the Honourable Court directing ALC( C) to complete the proceedings of conciliation . Finally on 19-12-97 , discussion between both the parties held. Shri N. P. Mishra , General Secretary INMOSSA insisted for transfer to Eklehra Colliery only. The management offered for transfer up to Rawanwara Colliery which was refused by the General Secretary. Conciliation finally resulted into failure on 19-12-97 . Vide order dated 28-9-96 as many as 53 persons working in various capacities such as overman Mining Sirdar , Explosive Çarrier, Dresser , Timber Mistry, Clipman, Socket- man, Trammor, Loading Mate , Raising Mate , Line Mistry, weretransferred from Eklehra Colliery to Thisgara/Mathani group. It was specifically mentioned in the aforesaid order that since these transfers are being made on administrative ground all the employees are entitled for TA, DA and joining time etc. as per rules . As the concemed workman was not willing to go on transfer to new project he was given nearer project i.e. Rawanwara Sub - Area vide order dated 1-11-96. The President of INMOSSA is not a protected workman under the transfer policy. The concemed workman being junior most overman was rightly transferred on administrative ground . That the management taking into consideration the norms of transfer policy has rightly transferred Shri S.S.Chourasia from Eklehra Colliery to Thisgara/Mathani group . As such the aforesaid transfer could not be treated as illegal as alleged by the Union . In view of the above , the action of the management in "transferring the workman from Eklehra , WCL to Thisgara/ Mathani group of WCL, Pench Area w.e.f. 15-11-96 is justified. Therefore the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

4.Vide order dated 1-6-05 of this tribunal, the case proceeded exparte against workman.

S.O. 3553. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 196/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7713 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S.E.C.L , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L -22012/266/ 1986- IR ( C-II)]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

be treated to be the casual or temporary. They are not getting full amount of minimum Cat- II of the NCWA- V. Since most of the 15 workmen have completed more than 2-3 years of continuous employment with Area Store of SECL, Johilla Area directly therefore they were entitled to be regularised departmentally with the management . That the subject was discussed in 1.R meeting with Union and SECL Headquarter Management on 8th & 9th Nov. 94, para- 2 has been agreed as under :-

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 196/97

" Point No. 07 Regularisation of Area Mazdoor Personnels and Sawmachine Mazdoors .

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

The Secretary,

NCWF, Post Nowrozabad Coliiery,

Workmen/Union

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Versus

TheGeneral Manager ,

"A. CPM Johilla area informed that a proposal in this regard has already been sent to Headquarter for a decision in regard to saw machine mazdoors numbering 15 and store personnel numbering 10 persons " P.M. ( IR) SECL, Bilaspur was advised to process a note in this regard . [ ACT PM ( IR) SECL Bilaspur] .

JohillaArea of SECL ,

PostNowrozabad Colliery,

Management

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day ofJuly, 2006

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/266/ 86 - IR ( C - II ) dated 11 / 14-7-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Johilla AreaofSECL in employing 15 labourers ( list enclosed) at area stores of Nowrozabad Colliery, which is a mining activity, at less than the rates of wages fixed under NCWA - I to V and also in not regularising their services on the rolls ofthe company from their dates ofappointment is legal and justified. If not , to what relief are the workmen entitled and from which date ? "

3. That the practice so adopted by the management to carry out its work is unfair practice and also purpose to avoid the regularisation of the said workman , the said practice infact amounts to victimisation , unfair labour practice and exploitation of the workers and working class. The management of SECL has also entered into various agreements with other Union , by which the workers employed directly by SECL, Johilla Area , management have been regularised . It may also be noted here that Hasdeo and Sohagpur area of SECL , management has also passed order dated 16-10-84, 22-6-87,6-11-90 and the management entered into agreement on 13-12-84 with other Union by the aforesaid order . The workers employed by SECL management have been given employment and they have taken on roll ofSECL . In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above , the terms of reference are liable to be answered in favour of the workman/Union . It is prayed by the workman/Union to answer the terms of reference in favour of the workmen/Union and direct the management to regularise the services of 15 workers w.e. f. 1-1-93 ( list attached) and pay all consequential benefits and also give seniority and monetary benefits etc.

4. The management in order to contest the reference filed their Written Statement .

2. The case of Workmen/Union Shri Jaiga and 14 others (names mentioned in the list attached with reference order) is as follows . That they were infact direct employees of the management . They were employed for the purpose of loading/unloading of wagons and trucks of store materials received . They are fully covered under the definition ofMine's work as they are working for mining purposes only. Presently they are paid for the work done on the basis of quality/weight of the materials loading/ unloading through the company's employee , for which the ratesare fixedby the General Manager , Johilla Area. All the economic and administrative control remains with the management of SECL- Johilla Area . They are entitled of Cat- II wages as per NCW A- V but nothing has been done so far. Their work is infact of permanent and perennial in nature . The loading/unloading work done by them is not oftemporary character and the workers are to be employed forconsiderable long period , therefore keeping in view of the service , which they are rendering at Area Store cannot

5. The case of management in brief is as follows . That SECL is a Government company and registered as such under Sec . 617 of the Company's Act. It has various areas within the jurisdiction of MP and Johilla is one of the areas under which the Nowrozabad colliery is. That the reference is bad in law for the Central Government has crossed its jurisdiction by adjudicating the issue stating in the reference "which is a Mining Activity " . Under regional stores , Nowrozabad is expected to stack/ store the consignment received from various suppliers meant for production unit through rail/road . Once the consignment is received from the supplier on whom purchase order is 2538 GI/06-27 7714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6. Vide order dated 10-4-06 passed by this tribunal , the case proceeded exparte against the workman/Union .

7.The management in order to prove their case filed affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta , the then working as Dy. Personnel Manager in Johilla area of SECL .

8. The parties have also filed certain Photostate copies of the documents but those documents cannot be read in evidence as they have not been proved in accordance with law of evidence .

9. I have heard Shri A.K.Shashi , advocate the learned counsel for the management and perused the evidence on record.

10. The case of the management is fully established from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta the then working as Dy . Personnel Manager in Johilla Area of SECL . As the case proceeded exparte against the workman/Union, there is no oral evidence on record on behalf of the workmen/Union .

11. In view of the above 1 am of the considered opinion that the award must be answered in favour of the management and against the workmen/Union . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , I am also of the opinion that the parties should be directed to bear their own costs of this reference .

12. It is , therefore , hereby held that the action of management of Johilla Area of SECL in employing 15 labourers ( list enclosed) at area stores of Nowrozabad Colliery, which is a mining activity, at less than the rates of wages fixed under NCW A- 1 to V and also in not regularising their services on the rolls of the company from their dates ofappointment is legal and justified and the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Parties shall bear their own costs ofthis reference .

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3554.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटिड स्टीवडोर्स एसोसिएशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोचि के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-35012/1/98- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006 placed, the regional store is to collect the material , stack it in the store , account it and issue it to the consumer against the requisition . For the purpose of unloading and stacking of consignments received through road , the management has 9 workers on their roll . These workers are engaged for unloading and stacking of consignment received through rails . However, where the consignment received through rail is girders , rails or such other heavy material , the management had to engage the porter/ outside agencies for unloading such heavy material on contract basis . The job of unloading and storing/ stacking is intermittent and uncertain and depending upon the arrival of consignment through rail . Taking into consideration of the fact that the work is neither permanent/ perennial in nature , it is not necessary to deploy regular band of workers for the said job. Since the area is too small and the expected input is very less , very limited consignment is expected by rail . As such the nature of job envisaged is uncertain and occasional . For the above reason , it is not required to engage regular band of labours for carrying out the said job. For the reasons that the work of unloading and stacking of the consignment is not prohibited under the contract Labour ( Regulation and abolition ) Act, and also that the work envisaged is uncertain and occasional , it is economically viable to get such work done through the gang of labours available on the spot . The labour so engaged are paid for the work done based on the weight/ quantity of the material loaded/stacked by the store personnel from the imprest . The labours so engaged are not only doing the work of the management, but of any other persons who availed their services and are ready to pay them . That the claimants are the gang of labours roaming for employment at any station and they are engaged by anybody who is in need of them . Since arrival of consignment through rail/ road is a normal phenomena such labours are stationed at those spots offering their labour . Had the aforesaid job been certain and regular the management must have sufficient manpower to earmark for the said job . Neither the claimants have been engaged continuously for a considerably long period in any permanent/perennial nature of job nor the workmen are entitled for Cat- II wages as per NCW A- V for the reason that the management has never appointed the workmen directly against any sanctioned vacancies by following prescribed rules for appointment. For the reason that the workmen were engaged occasionally for loading and stacking of the material received through rail , the claimants do not derive any right for regularization particularly because neither the work for which they have been engaged ispermanent/perennial in nature or prohibited one nor they have been appointed by the management against any existing sanctioned vacancy by following prescribed rules .and regulations for appointment . The claimants have not worked with the management at all. The claimants have failed to establish their claim against the management and therefore the claim of the workmen is liable to be rejected .

S.O. 3554. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2006) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Kochi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of United Stevedores Assn . , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 4-8-2006.

[No. L-35012/ 1/98 -IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present: SHRI P. L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Thursday the 20th day of July , 2006 /29th Asadha, 1928)

I. D. 16/2006

Workman/Union

: The Secretary United Employees' Association W/Island, Kochi -9 .

Management

: The President United Stevedores Association Kochi -3 .

ByAdvocate Shri V. B. Jinnah

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of United Stevedores Association, Cochin to retire Shri T. P. Valson, Foreman on superannuation w.e.f. 31.8.1998 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief the disputant concerned is entitled?"

2. Though notices were issued to both sides , management alone entered appearance . Two registered notices and another notice under certificate of posting were issued to the union. But nobody turned up on behalf ofthe union.Hence it has to be presumed that there is no existing dispute. Therefore the action of management of United Stevedores Association , Cochin to retire Shri T. P. Valson , Foreman on superannuation w.e.f. 31.8.1998 is to be held as justified. The award is passed accordingly.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 20th day ofJuly, 2006 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3555.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑयल इण्डिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3 ( सी ) ऑर्फ 2002 ) को

7715

भारत का राजपन्न : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/ 13/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3555.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3 (C)of 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oil India Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 4-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/ 13/2006- IR(M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Reference No. 3 (C) of 2002

Present : Shri B. Bora , Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal,Guwahati .

Inthe matter of an application under Section 33 -A And

Inthe matter of an Industrial dispute between:

The President , the Oil India Pipeline Mazdoor Union , Guwahati.

V/ s

1. The management of Oil India Ltd. , Pipeline Division , Ghy.

2. Sri J.C. Sutradha Contractor , C/o . Oil India Ltd. Date ofAward : 20-6-2006.

AWARD

This is an application under Section 33 - A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 whereby the union of Oil India Pipeline Mazdoor Union , Guwahati prayed for resume of service ofworkman shri Balin Deka .

The parties present through their learned counsels . Seen the compromise petition jointly filed by the parties . Heardthe learned counsels for the parties. The compromise isaccepted and an award is hereby passed in terms of the settlement which is annexured " x " . This reference is disposed of in terms of the compromise . The terms of the compromise will for parts of the award. The reference is accordingly finally disposed.

Given under my hand and seal of this Tribunal on this 20th June, 2006 .

B. BORA , Presiding Officer 7716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

ANNEXURE " X"

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] contractor subject to undertaking given to contractor that he will not commit any misconduct in future .

Signed this minutes on 20th June , 2006

Contractor

MINUTES OF MEETING BETWEEN SHRI J. C. SUTRADHAR, REGISTERED CONTRACTOR OF OIL AND THE OIL INDIA PIPELINE MAZDOOR UNION HELD ON 20-6-2006 IN THE PRESENCE OF THE MANAGEMENT OF OIL , PIPELINE HEADQUARTERS

Present :

Contracior

1. Shri J.C. Sutradhar

Management Representative

Representative of Oil India Pipeline Mazdoor Union

1. Shri Ashit Baran Sarkar , President

1. Shri L.C. Baruah , CM(A)

2. Shri A.J. Saikia , Dy. Manager ( ER)

2. Shri S.D. Chouhan , General Secretary

3. Shri A.C. Kalita , Vice President

4. Shri Bipul Saikia , Vice President

5. Shri Bhupen Das , Asstt . Secretary

6. Shri J.C. Kakati , Asstt . Secretary

7. Shri Ashok Roy, Treasurer .

Points raised by Union : Shri Bolin Deka , who was a contract labour working in accounts Department , Pipeline Headquarters under the contractor was terminated on 1-5-2001 for certain misconduct,

Now the case No. 3(c)/2002 OIPLMC Union Vs. (OIL) is in the Tribunal , Guwahati . At present Shri Deka is facing ahard financial crisis and owing to his desaster , we would like to withdraw the case subject to Shri Deka can be redeployed at a suitable place of Pipeline without paying any monetary benefit of past and his redeployment will be treated as a fresh contract labour , WCL ( P) in contractual work.

Contractor: Contractor will redeploy Shri BolinDeka, subject to no objection from oil, Pipeline Headquarters and further subject to withdrawal of the case No. 3 (c)/2002 [OIPLM Union Vs. OIL] with in 15 days from the date of signing this minutes. However , the validity of this minutes will not exist, if the case is not withdrawn before 15 days . Neither any monetary , seniority status will be extended/ counted directly or indirectly for the period of pendency of the case nor any other benefits will demand in any point of time in future by the union or Shri Bolin Deka .

Management (Pipeline Headquarters ) : Management will have no objection if Shri Bolin Deka is redeployed by

Representing the Management of

OIL(PHQ)

(Illegible)

Sd/-

Sd/- (Illegible)

(Illegible)

Sd/- (Illegible)

Sd/-

(Illegible)

Sd/-

(Illegible)

Sd/-

(Illegible)

19th June , 06 Shri J.C. Sutradhar

Registered Contractor OilGateNo. 2 Guwahati-781026

Sub: Undertaking

I would like to inform you that at present I am facing ahard financial crises and owing to my disaster I have requested to Oil India Pipeline Majdoor Union (C) to withdrawthe case No. 3 (C) /2002 (Bolin Deka Vs. (OIL) which is in tribunal at the earliest and also request you to redeploy me in contractual work in Pipeline Headquarters without paying any monetary benefit of past .

I assure you that I will not commit any misconduct in future.

(BolinDeka)

I No. Madgharia , Patharquarry Guwahati-26 नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3556 ,-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 मुम्बई-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/22/97 आई आर( सी-I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 7717

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3556. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 08/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-08-2006 .

[No. L- 11012/22/97- IR (C- I )]

S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

duty. In this manner his services were terminated . It is alleged that he had put in more than 240 days attendance in the preceding year of termination of service . He should be deemed to have been regularized and his termination amounts to retrenchemnt sence the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act has not been followed. Histermination is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated with full backwages. It is also alleged that he had submitted themedical certificate from Dr. Kothavale on 26-12-1994 to the Duty Officer but he was not allowed to resume duty . The termination without holding any enquiry and following dueprovisions of the Act is illegal .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT : Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT -8 of1998

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of AirIndia

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr. Lancy D'Souza, Adv.

For the workman : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Adv.

State

: Maharashtra Mumbai , dated the 25th day of July'2006

AWARD

1.This is a reference made by Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section 1 and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short) . Vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi . , Urder No. L- 11012/22/97- 1R. (Coal- I ) dated 10-3-1998 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

3. The Air India filed the written statement dt . 22-9-1999 and refuted the allegations made by the workman inhisstatement of claim . It is alleged that the workman was employed as a casual labourer intermittently as and when required fror various durations and lastly he was employed inCabin Catering Division Inflight Service Department for a fixed term from 26-10-94 till 28-12-1994 . Since the workman stopped reporting for work from 1st Nov. , 1994 without any intimation or communication , he thereby relinquished his assignment of casual labour and hence he was not allowed to join his duties after 28-12-1994 . It is false to allege that the workman submitted any medical certificate tothe DutyOfficer on 26-12-1994. He could not claim any reinstatement since he did not work for 240 days in the preseding year or in any year . The date of joining of the workman as on 05-10-1989 was also disputed. It is further specifically submitted that in view of the order dt . 14-2-1992 passed by the Honourable High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.99 of 1992 certain casual labourers including the workman had been called to report to the Recruitment Division on 06-4-1995 for completion ofpre- employmentmedical examination and other formalities but the workman did not report to the aforesaid recruitment division and hence the Company had to close down the case of the workman . The provision of Section 25 - F of the Act are not applicable to the case of the workman and hence his termination cannot be said to be illegal nor he is entitled to any reinstatement or any other relief.

4.Onthe pleadings ofthe parties the following issued were framed on 30-11-2002 by the learned predecessor in office:

"Whether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd. in terminating Mr. R.B. Dhonde, St. No. 86524, Ex-casual labour w.e.f. 26-12-1994 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

1. Whether the workman involved in the dispute was retrenched from his employment on 26-12-1994 within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ?

2. Whether the workman can claim protection of Section 25 - F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 on the ground that he was retrenched without following the mandatory provisions of that section?

3. What relief, if any , to which the workman is entitled?

2. The workman filed his Statement of claim dated 08-2-1999 and contended that he hadjoined the services of the Air India Ltd. in the Ground service department as a casual labourer on 05-10-1989 . Since then , he was working continuously in the said department till he fell sick w.e.f. 1st Nov. , 1994 as he suffered from enteric fever . He proceeded on leave after due information to the Duty Officer . When he became fit , he approached the Duty Officer on 26-12-1994 but he was not allowed to join the duty.Heapproached the Director ( HRD) but he too showed his helplessness and at last, he was not allowed to resume 7718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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

compensation nor he could claim for any reinstatement or re -absorption in the service .

Issue No. 1 and 2 :

The workman filed his own affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. He has been cross -examined bythe learned counsel for the Air India wherein he admitted that he was lastly engaged as Casual labour from 26-10-1994 to 28-12-1994. He cannot say whether he had visited office of the Company between 1st Nov 1994 to 26-12-1994 . He did not remember the date when he went to the office for the first time after 1st Nov. , 1994. He denied that the medical certificate produced by him was false. He had given the copy of the letter dt . 31-3-1995 to the office but he does not have any proof of that .He does not have any documentary evidence whenhe approached the Director, HRD . He further admitted that he worked for 17 days only in the month of October 1994. He denied the suggestion that he did not work for more than 240 days in the year 1994. He further admitted that he did not attend the examination held on 06th April 1995 for pre -employment medical because he was notwell . He had not filed any medical certificate to show that he was sick on 06th April 1995.

5. The workman has filed ten documents as per list dt.09-5-2002.

6. The Air India has not led any evidence .

8. The workman was given protection of service by the Honourable High Court vide writ petition No. 99 of 1992 and the Air India duly followed the procedure to complywith that direction. The Air India admittedly issued the notice to the casual labourer for completing due formalities by the Recruitment Division for which 06-4-1995 was fixed . It was surprising that the workman admittedly did not attend the recruitment division on 06-4-1995 . An excuse is being taken up before this Tribunal that he could not attend the recruitment division on 06-4-1995 since he was sick: It is surprising that no evidence whatsoever in the form of any medical certificate is being filed on record to show that he was actually sick on the aforesaid date . It was never intimated to the Air India that he could not attend the recruitment division on 06-4-1995 on the ground ofsickness . In this back ground , the workman lost his case andAir India cannot be put to blame for nor - fulfillment of the direction ofthe Honourable High Court of Bomaby in Writpetition No. 99 of 1992. The last employment of the workmanwas admittedly for a fixed period from 26-10-94 to 28-12-1994 as admitted by him in his cross -examination. During this period, the workman did not attend to the dutiesadmittedly from 1st Nov, 1994 till 28-12-1994. In these back ground, he lost his case and cannot claim any benefit out ofnon-compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act . The workman was simply a casual labour and inview of the foregoing discussions he could not claim any benefit for non - compliance of Section 25 - F of the Act as the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Act are not applicable.

9. In view ofd the aforesaid discussion I conclude that the workman was not retrenched within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) and he could not claim the benefit of provisions of section 25 -F of the Industrial disputes Act.

ISSUE NO. 3 : In view of my findings on Issue No. 1 and 2 the workman is not entitled to any relief on the fact ofit. However , keeping in mind the humanitarian touch of the matter and mercy appeal put forth by the learned counsel for the workman during the course ofhis argument, I order in the interest of justice that the Air India makes it convenient to offer one opportunity as and when the opportunity arises for it, to the workman for completion of pre- employment medical examination and other formalities to comply with the order of the Honourable High Court of Bombay in writ petition No. 99 of 1992 .

11. The Award is made accordingly.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त2006

का.आ. 3557.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written submissions made by them. The record as a whole has been perused . Admittedly, the workman was employed as a casual labourer . Admittedly, he remained absent w.e.f. 1st Nov , 1994 till 26th December , 1994. The medical certificate filed by the workman which has been obtained by him from a private Doctor is dt. 26-12-1994 . Thus , it is clear that there was no reason for the workman to attend the office during the period from 01-11-1994 to 26-12-1994 . The medical certificate cannot be relied upon unless it has been proved by the Doctor who issued it . Admittedly, it has not been issued by the Doctor of the Air India . No reliable evidence is available on record to show that the workman actuallyjoined the duties for the first time on 05-10-1989. Since this date is disputed by the Air India, the workman was required to prove it to show his continuous employment . No reliable evidence is available on record to show the continuous employment of the workman from October 1989 till 31-10-1994 . No relaible evidence is available on record that the workman worked for more than 240 days in any of the preceding year before 1st Nov, 1994. The burden was upon the workman to prove his continuous employment and at last for a period of240 days in a year to attract the provision of Section 25 - F or Section 2( oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act . In this view of the matter , the workman cannot be said to have been terminated illegally nor he cannot claim any retrechment

H+ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 160/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -30025/10/2006 आई आर( विविध) ]

7719

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3557.-In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 160/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006.

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR(M) ]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. L. TA. No. 160/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

(OldCom. No. 114/03 In Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) M. L. Parmar

...Complainant C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002 ,

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan , Dehradun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Opponent : Shri K. V. Gadhia

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending ofreference case.

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules withoutthe consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , he workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service conditionofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D.Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & Prules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4. By Ex. 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of sections 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

7720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[ PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

V/s .

TheDirector ( Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun-248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCE

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaintbecome infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order:

Shri K. V.Gadhia :

Opponent

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of EX . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. 1. KAZI , PresidingOfficer

Date: 23-08-05

Ahmedabad.

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त, 2006

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

का.आ. 3558.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 159/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006 आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3558.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 159/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006 .

[No. L- 30025/10/2006 - IR (M ) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itis the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D.Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B. 1. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA. No. 159/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 113/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) S. M. Makvana

C /o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana - 384 002 ,

complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege ofthe management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions ofthe complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach ofSection 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer Ahmedabad. Date : 23-8-05

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3559.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 158/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर(विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3559. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 158/04) 2538G1/06-28

7721

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006 .

[No. L- 30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT:

Shri B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. L. TA. No. 158/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A.

No. 201/04 (OldCom. No. 112/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , Mahesana -384 002 ,

T. J. Makhija 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , ...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan, Dehradun-248003 ...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

Opponent ShriK. V.Gadhia

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/ 50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4. By Ex . 5 opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the 1.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions ofthe complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

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

Ahmedabad .

B.1 . KAZI , Presiding Officer Date : 23-08-05

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3560.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 157/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-30025/10/2006 आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3560.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 157/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006 .

[No. L- 30025 / 10/2006-1R (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT :

Shri B. 1. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA. No. 157/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

(OldCom. No. 111/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99) D. S. Parmar

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384 002 ,

...Complainant

V/ s.

The Director (Personnel/HR ), ONGC Ltd , Telbhavan , Dehradun- 248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence 1 pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of EX. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

7723

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer Date: 23-08-05

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T. C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service conditionofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 / ( 1 )/2002 on15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention ofchange of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D.Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R& P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement ,

4.ByEx . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and theHon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption. The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3561.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 155/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) } बी. एम, डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3561. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 155/04 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplovers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-8-2006.

[No. L-30025/ 10/2006- IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy..

7724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006 /BHADRA 11 , 1928

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT ATAHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStaternent .

Shri B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer

Com C. G. I. TA. No. 155/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A.

No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 109/03 in Reference ( I. T. C. ) No. 120/99)

P. B. Vaghela

C/ oONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana -384 002,

...Complainant

V/s.

The Director (Personnel/HR ) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan , Dehrandun -248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES:

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukia

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

4. ByEx . 5 opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It isdenied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management.Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence 1 pass the following order:

ORDER

In view ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad .

3.I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Date: 23-8-2005

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.Α. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and itis the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 / ( 1 )/2002 on 15-5-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of 1.D.Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to 7725 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त , 2006

Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case ..

का.आ. 3562.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 156/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30025/ 10/2006 - आई आर (विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3562.- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 156/04 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the empioyers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006 .

[No. L-30025/10/2006-IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No.201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R& P rules after completing ofsix years , he workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention ofchange oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D.Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & Prules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc . , L. L. M.) , PresidingOfficer

Com C. G. L. TA. No. 156/04 In Reference No. C. G. L. T.A.

No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 110/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99)

Tilokram

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,

Mahesana - 384 002,

-Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/ HR) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan,

Dehrandun- 248003

--Opponent

APPEARANCES

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

4.ByEx. 5.opponent has filed the written statement. Thebrieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at iaw andthe Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Sections 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption. The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. &. P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .

7726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/ BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

(Old Com . No. 107/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99)

R. R. Parikh

C/ oONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation , 5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.

Mahsana -384 002,

19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, -Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector ( Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun -248003

-Opponent

APPEARANCE

Complainant : Shri R.C. Shukla

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact ofEX. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer

Date : 23-08-05

Ahmedabad .

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त, 2006

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, Praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service In one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .

का. आ. 3563.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 153/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3563.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 153/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006 .

[No. L- 30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/104 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Alied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As perthe present R & P rules after completing of six years , he workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service conditionofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule- IV of I.D.Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party- to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .

PRESENT

Shri B. I. Kazi ( B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com C. G. I. TA . No. 153/04 In Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject-matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC ) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true, hence denied bythe opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

7727

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

NewDelhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3564. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 154/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006.

[No. L- 30025/ 10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

SHRI B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 154/04 in Reference No. C. G. L. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 108/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99 ] S. B. Rathva C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana -384002 , ...Complainant

V/s .

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan ,

Dehradun-248003

...Opponent APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject-matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 23-08-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3564.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 154/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/ BHADRA 11 , 1928

per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it isthe time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through Conciliation Officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D.Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference No. 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

4. ByEx. 5 opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension - assumption . The subject-matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contentionmade in the complaint are not true , hence denied bythe opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to sayanything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced anyproofof contravention of Section 33 ofthe I.D. Act . Thus itis prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

Looking to the facts ofthis purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law . Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

Inview of the fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject - matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer Date: 23-08-05 Ahmedabad .

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3565.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -30025/ 10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3565. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 116/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of O. N. G. C. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. I. Kazi (B. Sc. , L. L. M.) , Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 116/04 in Reference No. C. G. I. T. A. No. 201/04

[Old Com. No. 70/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99] B. R. Patel ,

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar , Mahesana - 384 002 ,

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd. , Telbhavan , Dehradun -248003

...Opponent 7729 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent.

ORDER

not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change of any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for thediscussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R & P The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention ofSection 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be orderedto desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable ` settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 17-5-05

Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 7. अगस्त, 2006

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.Α. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50/( 1 )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change oftime bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IVof I.D. Act, 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

का.आ. 3566. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 115/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30025/10/2006- आई आर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3566. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 115/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the written statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 ofthe I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected withthe main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are

2538 G1/ 06-29 7730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2,2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

management of O. N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006 .

[No. L -30025/ 10/2006-IR (M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

SHRI B. I. KAZI ( B. Sc . , L. L. M. ), Presiding Officer Com. C. G. I. TA. No. 115/04 in Reference No. C. G. L. T.

A. No. 201/04

[Old Com . No. 69/03 in Reference (I. T. C.) No. 120/99] P.K. Sonara

C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near SahkarNagar,

Mahesana -384 002

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Schedule - IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical categoryworkman without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service conditions till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

...Complainant

V/s.

TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd , Telbhavan , Dehrandun - 248003

...Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R.C. Shukla

Complainant :

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponent :

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes síx years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference.As per the present R & P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50/( I )/2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and 4. By Ex . 5 the opponent has filed the written statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 ofthe I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter ofpresent complaint is not connectedwith the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion ruleswith the other union. It is the privilege ofthe management to change ofany rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calis recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed thatthe complaint should be dismissed with cost .

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex . 6 it is clear thatthe matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R & P policy.Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

Inview ofthe fact of Ex . 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Date: 17-5-05 Ahmedabad.

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer 7731 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

inwhich a workman who completes six years of service in onepostwill get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say ofthe complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action ofmodifying R & P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.

का.आ: 3567.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , 'अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30025 /10/2006- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3567.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers relation to the management of O.N. G. C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-08-2006.

[No. L-30025/10/2006- IR (B-II)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .

SHRI B. I. KAZI (B. Sc. , L. L. M. ) , Presiding Officer

Com C. G. I. TA. No. 114/04, In Reference No. C.G.LT.A.

No. 201/04

(Old Com. No. 68/03 in Reference (I. T. C. ) No. 120/99)

G. S. Malik

C/ o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar ,

Mahesana -384 002

...Complainant

V/s .

The Director ( Personnel/HR) ,

ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan ,

Dehrandun -248003

Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri R. C. Shukla

Complainant

Shri K. V.Gadhia

Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy,

4.ByEx. 5 the opponent has filed the written statement. The brieffacts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has nojurisdiction . The complaint isill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D.Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law , as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that theemanagement is trying to modify recruitment andpromotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant. The management call recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R & P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & . P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention 7732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2,2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

AND

of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.

The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India

Region- II , Zonal Office , Civil Lines ,

Bareilly, (U.P.) 243001

AWARD

5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.

Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their orderNo. L- 12012/ 141 /2001 - IR(B-1) dated 30-8-2001 referred the dispute ofBrijesh Kumar for adjudication on following issues:

6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R & P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex . 6, this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence 1 pass the following order:

ORDER

क्या प्रबंधन स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया आंचलिक कार्यालय सिविल लाइन्स बरेली द्वारा श्री बृजेश कुमार पुत्र श्री देवकी नन्दन शर्मा भू.पू. जोन/कैन्टीन ब्याय को दिनांक 9-3-2000 से नौकरी से निकाला जाना उचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है ?

In view of the fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Date : 17-5-05

B. 1. KAZI , Presiding Officer

Ahmedabad.

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3568.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/04) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/141/2001- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3568.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 121/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07-08-2006.

[No. L- 12012/141 /2001 - IR (B - I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The case ofBrijesh Kumar the worker in brief is that Brijesh Kumar was appointed in Dec. 1994by the then BranchManager, SBI , Noorpur branch Sri P.K. Agarwal as Peon and he was assigned the worker under Local Implementation Committee . The State Bank of India, Noorpur branch Distt. Bijanaur which shall hereinafter called as bank employed Brijesh Kumar as Peom- cum- Canteen Boy. It has been alleged that the workman Brijesh Kumar who , shall be hereinafter called as workman was employed for canteen work as well as allied work of office . The workman was engaged in carrying registers keeping files and making them available to the employees and officers of the bank . The worker has also alleged that he was asked to file documents and segregate the papers etc. The worker has alleged that Local Implementation Committee is part and partial of the bank and its control is being exercised by Noorpur branch ofthe bank. The worker has further alleged that he worked upto 8-3-2000 & on 9-3-2000 he was denied the job . The worker has alleged thathe never received any charge sheet and no explanation was called from him . He further alleges that case of worker is covered under retrenchment but the bank has not complied with the provision of retrenchment as it has not given any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation . The allegations of the workman is that in his place another person is engaged in the job and accordingly the worker prayed that the order of termination ofservice is illegal and unjustified and therefore he should be reinstated with back wages and continuity in service .

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

SHRI KANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer I.D. 121/2004(137/2001 )

Ref . No. L- 12012/ 141 / 2001 - IR( B- I) Dt. 30-8-2001

Between

The opposite party i.e. State Bank of India has filed the written statement where in the bank has denied the appointment of the worker in the bank and instead bank has alleged that the applicant at no point of time was engaged by the bank rather he was engaged as Canteen Boy by LIC which shall hereinafter called as Local Implementation Committee . The bank has further stated that for the welfare of staff there is Local Implemenation Committee for staff welfare which is absolutely independent Brijesh Kumar S/ o Late Devki Nandan Sharma , Village-Khadama, Post, Umri , Distt. -Bijanaur [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

to the bank establishment . The said committee as per welfare scheme look after the arrrangement for running of the canteen for which staff of the branch facilitated and entertained on their own costs . The bank has nothing to do the functioning of the canteen. It has wholly being operated and functioned in its own way and quite independently to that of the bank's Establishment. The canteen run by Local Implementation Committee is not statutory. It is denied that the workman was ever appointed as messanger or peon or on any other post of subordinate services with the establishment of the Bank, the bank has not paid any salary as such . Therefore the question of appointing the wroker as claimed by him does not arise . It istherefore requested the claim of worker be rejected outright .

In the present case ex- parte award was passed on 25-4-2003 later on it was restored and registered on 15-12-04 and3-1-05 was fixed for filing rejoinder by the workmanbutthe wrokman did not file rejoinder on 3-1-05 or subsequent date i.e. 18-1-05 . Worker even did not turned up on the subsequent dates of evidence and on 31-10-05 the court passed a order for ex - parte against the workman.

Opposite party did not examine any evidence thereafter it is partinent to mention here that before passing the ex- parte award against the workman the opposite party did examine Sri Devraj Singh, Branch Manager, State Bank of India , Noorpur .

The facts and circumstances has not changed after the passing of ex - party awarddt . 25-4-03.

None has turned up from either side today for forwarding their argument . I proceed to pass the award on the basis of records available on the file . For the effective. adjudication of the dispute referred following additional issues have been framed on 8-4-03 .

1. Whether the workman Brijesh Kumar was appointed by Branch Manager , Sri P. K. Agarwal in Dec. , 94 as alleged in statement of ciaim in para 3&4.

2. Whether the workman worked with the bank till March , 2000 as alleged by the workman in his statement ofclaim.

3. Whether Brijesh Kumar worked as canteen boyunder Local Implementation Committee in the compund ofNoorpur branch from the year 1994 to year 2000 and as such he is not employee of the bank as alleged in the Written statement.

4. Whether Brijesh Kumar was terminated from services on 9-3-2000 .

5. Whether the termination was justified.

6. Whether Brijesh Kumar is entitled to any relief.

Issue No. 1,2 are taken together as burden ofproving of those facts on which issues were framed is on the workman.

7733

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Issue No. 1 & 2

Whether the workman Brijesh Kumar was appointed by. the Branch Manager in Dec. , 1994 as alleged in the statement of claim in para 3 &4.

Whether the workman worked with the bank till March, 2000 as alleged by the workman in his statement of claim.

The worker has failed to prove that he was appointed by the Branch Manager as peon/ canteen boy . No specific datehas been mentioned by the workman in the statement of claim itself as to what date he was appointed . On the other hand the management has proved by oral evidence that the worker was not employee of the bank .

Although the workman has alleged in the statement ofclaim that he was appointed in Dec. , 1994 and worked upto 8-3-2000 . The worker has also failed to prove that his services were terminated on 9-3-2000 and therefore issue No. 1 , 2 are decided in negative .

Issue No. 3

Whether Brijesh Kumar worked as Canteen Boy under Local Implementation Committee in the complound ofNoorpur branch from 1994 to 2000 and is not employee on the bank as alleged in the written statement .

MW Sri Dev Raj Singh Branch Manager has stated on oath that there are Local Implementation Committee at branch level for the welfare of its employees which is run by the unit of the Bank. The Branch Manager has stated on oath that the payment to the employees of the Local Implementation Commiittee is not made by the establishment of the Bank. Witness has stated that the Local Implementation Committee is independent of the bank and bank has got nothing to say with the working of the Local Implementation Committee.

Themanagement witness has denied that the worker was engaged in bank or allied work of the bank.

Learned counsel for the bank Sri D. P. Dewedi argued that the employees ofthe Local Implementation Committee has nothing to do with the State Bank of India and matter was once taken in the Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the employees of the canteen run by the the Local Implementation Committee cannot claim to be absorbed as employee . Leerned counsel as citedAIR Supreme Court page 1518 State Bank of India Vs State Bank of India . Canteen Employees Union and others .

I have gone through the said case . It was held that employees of canteen which are run at various branches by Local Implementation Committee as per the welfare scheme framed by the State Bank of India would not be employees of the bank as bank is not having statutory or contractual obligation or obligation arising under the award to run such canteen .

7734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

histermination . Issue No. 5 is accordingly decided against theworkman.

Issue No. 6

Whether the Brijesh Kumar is entitled to any relief. Discussion above I come to the conclusion that the Brijesh Kumar has not been able to prove that he was appointed by the bank to carry out work of the bank therefore he is not entitled to the relief claimed.

The question referred to the tribunal was whether thetermination of the worker on 9-3-2000 was justified and valied to this reply is that worker has not been able to prove that he was a employee of the bank or he was appointed by the competent authority of the bank and therefore the question of termination does not arise and as such the worker is not entitled to any relief.

ORDER

It has also been held that there is no obligation statutory or otherwise to run the canteen by the bank . The scheme as stated only provides for grant of subsidy , for running of the canteen, if some more cost is required in running canteen , the number of staff working in that particular branch are required to bear it . The bank is not employing the canteen worker . The bank is not supervising or controlling the work or the details regarding the canteen or its employees appointed by the Local Impelementation Committee. Bank is not taking any disciplinary action or directing any employee to do a particular work for that purpose no scheme is laid down by the bank. Not only this other more important aspect is "the recruitment" by the bank is to be made by the stautory rules framed by it after giving proper advertisment , test , and/ or interview . As against this for appointing canteen employees there are no rules framed by the bank. The clause which provides that canteen should run on " no profit no loss basis " also makes it clear that the subsidy provided is only to the extent of the funds made available and that concerned members of the Local Impelementation Committee would ensure that article are purchased on cash payments and no liability is incurred from any source . It is nothing to do running canteen by the bank .

The workman is not appointed by the State Bank of India, Noorpur Branch , Bijnore , U. P. and therefore there is no question of his termination and therefore the worker is not entitled to any relief.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

3-8-2006

Luchnow

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त 2006

Learned counsel for the bank argued that the workman has not alleged that he has been recruited through any advertisement or any interview . He has also stated recruiting authority of the peon is Regional Manager of the bank and the worker is not claiming himself to be appointed by the competent authority of the bank and therefore it cannot be held that the worker is employee of the bank. On the basis of the case and evidence adduce by the bank . I come to the conclusion that the workman is not employee ofthe bank as alleged by him , rather he appears to be a canteen boy who worked under the Local Impelementation Committee . Issue No. 3 therefore is decided affirmatively in favour of the bank .

का.आ. 3569.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Issue No. 4

[सं. एल-22012/2/2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी Whether Brijesh Kumar was terminated from services on 9-3-2000 .

New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

Itwas the assertion of the worker in the statement of claim his services is terminated on 9-3-2000 though he has not been able to prove it though the burden was on him . Since the wroker was not employee of the State Bank of India as has been proved by the MW, therefore there is no question of termination as alleged by the worker. Issue No. 4 therefore decided in negative against the workman .

Issue No. 5

Whether the termination was justified .

S.O. 3569. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2004 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wani North Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. , Junad Open Cast Area of Western Coalfields and their workman , received by the Central Govemment on 03-08-2006 .

[No. L- 22012/2/2003 - IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer From the discussion above and the evidence on record I come to the conclusion that since the workman Brijesh Kumar not employee of the State Bank of India, Noorpur Branch , Bijnore , U.P. and there is no question of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

7735 ANNEXURE

Coalfields and their workman, received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

[No. L- 22012/ 1 /2003 -IR(C- II)] Case No. 07/2004 Date 26-7-2006

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The General Manager , Wani North Area of W.C.L. , Tah . Wani , Dist. Yavatmal.

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR The Sub Area Manager , Junad Open Cast Sub Area of WCL, Tah . Wani , Distt . Yavatmal .

Case No. 08/2004 Date 26-7-2006 Versus

TheGeneral Manager, Wani North Area of W.C.L. , Tah . Wani , Distt . Yavatmal .

Shri J. N. Pandey, President, Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS), Ward No. 9 , Tilak Nagar , Wani , Yavatmal.

AWARD

The Sub Area Manager, Junad Open Cast Sub Area of WCL, Tah. Wani , Distt. Yavatmal .

Versus

Shri J. N. Pandey, President , Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS), Ward No. 9 , Tilak Nagar, Wani , Yavatmal .

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between shri J. N. Pandey, President , Koyla Shramik Sabha ( HMS ), Party no . 2 and Wani North Area ofWCL , Party no . 1 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L - 22012/2/2003 - IR(C- II ) dt. 23-12-2003 under clause D of the sub section 1 and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of ID Act with the following schedule .

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Wani North of WCL in treating 21-9-1994 instead of 21-9-1992 as the date of appointment of Shri P. C. Potduke, Asstt. Foreman- Trainee is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri J. N. Pandey , President, Koyla Shramik Sabha ( HMS) , Party no. 2 and Wani North Area ofWCL, Party no. 1 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 1/2003 - IR(C- I1 ) dt. 23-12-2003 under clause D ofthe sub section 1 and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of ID Act with the following schedule .

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Wani North of WCL in treating 15-12-1998 as the date of appointment of Shri Ravin Girish Bele, Krishnakumar Sitaram kurrewar , Akash Tikamdas Sonalkar, Dhanraj Talsiram Taksande instead of 24-07-1996 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" Despite ofthe notices neither the applicant, petitioner , Party No. 2 nor the respondent , Party No. 1 has filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement. They did not bother even to attend the Tribunal . It seems that nobody is taking interest . There are no reasons to continue the claim keeping as pending . Hence it is disposed of for default of the petitioner . Hence the award . The dispute stands as dismissed for want of prosecution .

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त 2006

का.आ 3570.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू. सी. एल.

Despite of the notices neither the applicant , petitioner, Party No. 2 nor the respondent, Party No. 1 has filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statement . They did not bother even to attend the Tribunal. It seems that nobody istaking interest . There are no reasons to continue the claim keeping as pending. Hence it is disposed of for default of the petitioner . Hence the award . The dispute stands as dismissed for want of prosecution.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त 2006 [सं. एल-22012/ 1 /2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

का.आ. 3571.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। S.O. 3570.- In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Wani North Area of Western Coalfields Ltd. , Junad Open Cast Area ofWestern

[सं. एल-22012/90/2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी 7736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

New Delhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3571 ,-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - curn - Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Ukni Sub Area ( Wani NorthArea) of WCL, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006,

[No. L - 22012/90/2003 - IR (C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. 12/2004 Date 26-7-2006 The Sub Area Manager , Ukni Sub Area (Wani North Area) ofWCL , Post . Ukni , Tah . Wani , Dist . Yavatmal .

Versus

Shri Vinod Singh , President , Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Br, Ukni Open Cast , Miners QuarterNo. 245 , PO. Bhallar , Tah . Wani , Distt-Yavatmal .

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Vinod Singh, President, Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Party no . 2 and Ukni Sub Area ( Wani North Area ) of WCL, Party no. 1 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L- 22012/90/2003 - IR( C- II)) dt. 04-02-2004 under clause D of the sub section 1 and sub section (2A) ofSection 10 of ID Act with the following schedule .

"Whether the action of the management in relation to Ukni Sub Area (Wani North Area) of Western Coalfields Ltd. in denying regularization as Clerk Gr . III to Shri Manon LaxmanGohokar , General Mazdoor, Pimpalgaon Sub Area oncompletion of 240 days as Clerk Gr. III w.e.f. 11-2-1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Despite of the notices neither the applicant, petitioner , Party No. 2 nor the respondent , Party No. 1 has filed any Statement of Claim or Written Statemenet . They did not bother even to attend the Tribunal . It seems that nobody is taking interest . There are no reasons to continue the claim keeping as pending . Hence it is disposed of for default of the petitioner . Hence the award. The dispute stands as dismissed for want of prosecution.

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3572 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,

[PART I SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/ 283/1998- आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3572. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe management of WCL and their workman, received by the Central Government on 03-08-2006.

[No. L- 22012 /283 / 1998 - IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT:

SHRI A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer CaseNo. 91/2002 Date 25-07-2006

The Chairman- cum - Managing Director , W.C.L. , Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur .

Versus

Shri.Deputy General Secretary , Indian National Mines Overman Sirdar and Shot Firers Assn . , B - 65 , Rainnagar , PO . Ghugus Colliery, Chandrapur .

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between shri the employers in relation to theManagement of Chairman- cum-Managing Director, WCL, Party No. 1 and their union , Party No. 2, referred the same vide order No. L - 22012/283/ 98 - IR ( C - II ) dt. 27-5-1999 for adjudication to this Tribunal under clause (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of ID Act with the following schedule.

"Whether the action of the management of WCL , Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur-440001 in not giving promotion ot Fifteen percent posts of Mining Sirdar in T & S Gr.C to Production- cum-Saftey Asstt . In T & S Gr. B and from Production- cum- Saftey Asstt. T& SGr . B to Sr.Production-cum-Saftey Astt. In T&S Gr . A as per records note of discussions held on 23-12-92 between the management of Coal India Ltd. and INMOSSA at Calcutta is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

Thedispute was filed before CGIT, Jabalpur however later on consequent of establishement of this Tribunal it was transferred to this Tribunal. It seems that in resporise to the notice the counsel for the management has filed [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Vakalatnama however nobody appears for the petitioner despite of the notices . It seems that nobody is taking interest neither a statement of calim nor written statement no behalf ofthe respondent is filed . They are no reasons to continue the claim keeping as pending . Hence it is disposed of for default of the petitioner . Hence the award that the dispute stands as dismissed for want of prosecution.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3573.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 189 /1987- (डी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3573.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-42012/ 189/ 1987- (D- II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT : Shri A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer Case No. 27/2001 Date 25-7-2006 TheDistrict Manager , F. C. I. , Ajni , Nagpur

Versus

Shri C. K. Kamble , Vaishali Nagar, Gandhi Ward, Warthi (Bhandara).

AWARD

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between,Shri C. K. Kamble , Party No.2 and the District Manager, F.C.I. , Ajni , Nagpur Party No. I referred the same for adjudication vide order No. L- 42012/189/87 - D- II dtd . 19-9-1988 to this Tribunal under clause ( d) sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of ID Act, 1947 with the following schedule.

2538 G1/ 06-30

7737

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

"Whether the action of the Zonal Manager (W) , Food Corporation of India, Bombayjustified in removing Shri C. K. Kamble , AGI vide his order dtd . 11-3-1986 ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? " In response to the notices , both the parties appeared and filed their Statement of Claim and a reply by the management, FCI . Subsequently before the CGIT, Jabalpur eventhe evidence ofpetitioner was recorded . Consequent upon establishment of this Tribunal , the dispute was transferred to CGIT, Nagpur and it was pending before this Tribunal . The above matter i.e. dispute came for hearing before this Tribunal on 9-6-2006 . The counsel for the Respondent , Party No. I filed an application along with a death certificate informing that the claim has been abated and it should be disposed of. It seems that nobody was attending the Tribunal for considerable long time because the applicant, petitioner seems to have expired on 14-11-2004 . The Respondent has filed and an application requestingto dismiss the claim.

Since nobody was appearing for the petitioner nor he himselfwas present indicates that nobody is interested in continuing the matter even the counsel for the respondent has requested to dismiss the claim, hence the claim is disposed of as abated because nobody has even made effort ofbringing the legal heirs on record . Hence the claim isdisposed of. It stands dismissed as abated. Hence thisAward.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3574.-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 असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/269/2003- आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3574. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Haripur Colliery, Kenda Area, M/s . ECL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-22012/269/2003 - IR (C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 7738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

SHRI Md . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer Reference No. 37 of 2004

PARTIES : The Agent, Haripur Colliery of M/ s . ECL, Haripur,Burdwan.

Versus

Thejoint General Secretary, Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union (INTUC) , Ukhra, Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

None

Forthe Union (Workman)

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal Dated the 16-6-2006

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers 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 theMinistry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 269/2003 - IR( C - II) dated 23-6-2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this tribubnal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofHaripur Colliery of M/ s . Estern Coalfields Limited in denying regularization as Hauage Operator, Car- V including payment of difference of wages with retrospective effect to Sh. Asir Mia, P. R. Mason is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Having received the Order No. L - 22012/269 /2003IR- (C-II) dated 23-06-2004 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Lablour , New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference case No. 37 of2004 was registered on 5-7-2004 and accordingly an order was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the scheduled date and file their written statements along with the documents and list of witnesses in support of their claims . Pursuant to the said order notices were issued to the parties concerned through the registered post .

Fromperusal of the record it transpires that Shri P.Κ. Das, Advocate appeared on behalf ofthe management along with the duly authorized letter of authority which was kept on the record . It is further clear from the record that the Acknowledgement due card after proper and due service of the notices was received back in the court . The A/D itself is the legal and sufficient proof of the service of the notices to the union . The endorsement after receipt ofthe

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] notices made by the union is sufficient to conclude that the union got the notice about the pendency of the dispute raised by the union . It is further clear from the record that several adjournments were given in between the dates 1-10-2004 to 16-6-2006 to the union to appear in court and to take suitable step on its behalf but to no effect . These all facts and circumstance go to show that the uniorr has got no interest and does not want to proceed with the reference any further . In such circumstance it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served . Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED

that let a " No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed . Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour, Govt . of India , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

Md . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3575.- 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 45/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/306/2003 - आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3575.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Chinakuri 3 Pits Colliery, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 3-8-2006 .

[No. L-22012/306/2003 -IR ( C -II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Shri Md . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer Case No. 45 of 2004

PARTIES : The Agent, Chinakuri 3 Pits Colliery of M/s. ECL, Sundarchak , Burdwan. Versus

The Chief Organising Secretary , Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol , Burdwan .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the managemet : Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

Forthe union (Workman)

: Sri S. K. Pandey, ChiefOrg. Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol.

State : West Bengal Industry: Coal

Dated the 24-5-2006

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers 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 ofLabour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 306/2003 - IR( C -II) dated 29-06-2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this tribubnal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ECL in denying the subsequential benefits to Sh. Dwarika Yadav with the change of pay and other allowance admissible to the job of chainman along with regularization to be effected w.e.f. 01- 02-1989 to 07-03-1995 is legal and justified? If not , to what reliefan individual is entitled ? " Onhaving received the Order No. L- 22012/306/2003- IR(C- II ) dated 29-06-2004 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 45 of 2004 was registered on 12-07-2004 and an order was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post with a direction to appear in the court and file their written statement along with the documents and list of witnesses to be examined in support of their cases . Accordingly the notices through the registered post were issued to the parties concerned and in compliance of the same Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey along with the letter of authority duly authorized by the Chief Organising Secretary of the Koyala Mazdoor Congress Asansol appeared and filed his written statement on behalf of the union. Likewise Sri P. K. Das , Advocate also appeared on behalf of the Management along with a letter ofauthority duly authorized by the competent authority of the management.

7739

भारत का राजपल : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

ORDERED

that let a " No Dispute Award " be and the same is passed. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Govt . of India , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3576.- 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 33/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/218/2002- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डैस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 7th August, 2006

S.O. 3576.- In Pursuance of section 1,7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Khas Kajore Colliery ofM/ s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and their workman , received bythe Central Government on 4-8-2006.

[No. L- 22012/218/2002 -IR( C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT : Shri Md . Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer Reference No. 33 of 2003

PARTIES : The Agent, Khas Kajora Colliery ofM/s. ECL, Kajoragram, Burdwan. Versus

TheGeneral Secretary, KoyalaMazdoor Congress,Asansol , Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES :

Forthe managements: Sri P. K. Das , Advocate,

: Sri Rakesh Kumar, General For the Union (Workman)

Onperusal ofthe record it further transpires that the union left taking any step since 24-01-2004. Several directions and adjournments were granted to the union to appear and take suitable step on its behalf but to no effect. The non-taking of any step right from 24-01-2004 to 24-05-2006 by the union itself indicates that the union has lost its interest in this case , so it does not take any step on its behalf. In such a circumstance it is not advisable or proper to keep the record pending any more . As such it is hereby:

Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol .

Industry : Coal State: West Bengal Dated the 15-6-2006 AWARD

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 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India 7740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012 /213/2002 - IR( CM - II) dated 30-09-2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thistribubnal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Koyala Mazdoor Congressfrom the management of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Khas Kajora Colliery for payment ofwages to Sh . Vijay Ram , Fitter for the suspension period from 27-8-1996 to 22-11-1996 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " After having received the order No. L - 22012/218/ 2002- IR ( CM - II) dated 30-09-2003 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute , a reference case No. 33 of 2003 was registered on 20-01-2003/ 27-5-2004 and an order was. passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court and file their written statement along with the documents and list of witnesses in support of their cases . Accordingly the notices were issued to the parties concerned and pursuant to that Sri Rakesh Kumar, General Secretary of the union appeared to represent the workman, likewise Sri P.K. Das , Advocate also appeared in the court along with the letter of authority duly authorized by the competent authority of the management.

From perusal of the record it transpires that none of the parties has filed their statement . It is further clear from the order sheets of the record that 21-12-04 at the request ofboth the parties 14-2-05 was the date fixed for filing their written statement but unfortunately no written statement was filed on that date from either side . The union left taking any step in this case right from 14-2-05 to 15-06-06. Several dates and adjournments were given to the union to appear and take proper step on its behalf but to no effect . These all prevailing facts go to indicate that the union has got no interest in this case and does not want to proceed with the case any further . In the facts and circumstances of the case it is not just or proper to keep the dispute pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served . As such it ishereby:

ORDERED

that let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3577.- 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 मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण,

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-08-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/108/2000- आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th August , 2006

S.O. 3577. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on04-08-2006.

[No. L-22012/ 108/2000- IR( C - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

SHRI MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer Reference No. 11 of 2002

Forthe managements :

Forthe union

PARTIES : The Agent , Parbelia Colliery of M/ s . ECL , Nethuria , Purulia. Mazdoor Versus The General Secretary, West Bangal Khan Sangh (UTUC) , Neamatpur, Burdwan. REPRESENTATIVES : (Workman) Industry : Coal : None Sri N. Ganguly, Advocate. State: West Bengal Dated the 15-6-2006

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers 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) , Govet. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 108/2000 - IR( C - II ) dated 05-06-2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bhamuria Unit of Parbelia Colliery under E.C.L. Ltd. in not taking into account the date ofbirth of Sri Gour Bouri as 28-10-1940 as per the Statutory Certificate under Mines Act and also compelling [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7741

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

to go no retirement on superannuation on 7-5-1996 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

After having received the order No. L- 22012/ 108/ 2000- IR( CM- II ) dated 5-6-2002 ofthe aforesaid reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute referred , a reference case No. 11 of 2002 was registered on 24-6-2002/ 2-7-2002 and an order was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post with a directing than to appear in the court on the date fixed and file their written statement along with the documents and list of witnesses in support of their cases . Pursuant to the said notices issued Sri N. Ganguly, Advocate also appeared in the court along with the letter of authority to represent the union.

From perusal of the record it transpires that on 27-5-04 after joining of the Presiding Officer notices through the registered post were issued to the respective parties directing them to appear and take suitable step on their behalf. The notices were duly served against both the parties and they have made endorsement to that effect on the A/ D which were kept on the record . Several adjournments and directions were give to the union to appear in the court but the union in spite of the receipt of the registered notice did not care to appear in the court and failed to take any step on its behalf. The regular absence of the union right from 29-6-04 to 15-6-06 itself indicates that the union has lost its interest in this case and does not want to proceed with the case . In such circumstances it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served . Accordingly it ishereby:

ORDERED

That let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour , Government of India, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of. Md . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 8 अगस्त, 2006 का.आ. 3578.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बोमा स्टोन माईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2 ( सी )/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-29011/69/2004- आई आर( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th August , 2006 S.O. 3578.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2 (C)/ 2005) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Boma Stone Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-8-2006 .

[No. L-29011/69/2004- IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFCER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA Reference Case No. 2(C) of 2005 Management of M/ s . Aquil Akhtar, Boma Stones , Mines, Mines -Boma Pahar, P.O. Bisanpur Vaya Pathana, Sahib Ganj (Jharkhand) and their workman represented by Talbania Branch President, CA- Malekh Akhtar , Bihar Mines & Quarry Workers Union , P.O. Barharwa , Jharkhand.

For the Management : A. Husasin . Forthe Workman Melekawar . :

PRESENT

V. Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna.. AWARD

Patna, Dated the 31st July, 2006.

By adjudication order No. L- 29011 / 69 /2004 - IR(M) dated 18-1-2005 , the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi has referred under Clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as " the Act " ) , the following dispute between the management of M/ A . Aquil Akhtar, Boma Stone Mines , MinesBoma Pahar , P.O. Bisanpur Vaya Sahibganj and their workman represented by Talbania Branch President, CA-Malekh Akhtar, Bihar Mines & Quarry Worker Union, P.O. Barharwa, Jharkhand for adjudication to the Tribunal onthe following:

"Whether the action of the management, M/s . AquilAkhtar, Boma Stone Mines , P.S. Ranga, Vill. Bindubasni Road , P.O. Barharwa, Dist. Sahibganj in terminating the services of S/ Shri Lal Poria and 45 others ( list enclosed) without complying Section 25F I.D. Act, 1947 is legal and or justified? Ifnot, to what relief these workmen are entitled? " 2. From perusal of record it tranpires that on notice issued from this Tribunal , the workman appeared through their representative on 15-3-2005 and went on taking time on different dates for filing written statement . The management also appeared on 20-12-2005 and took time filingwritten statement . On 16-1-2006 also the management as well as workmen's representative took time for the said purpose. The Tribunal remained vacant from 1-1-2006 and Ijoined on 20-5-2006. After my joining, notices were issued to both the parties through post on 7th June, 2006 and again on 18th July, 2006 but neither party appeared nor filedwritten statement.

7742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3. Under the circumstances I presume that the parties have resolved dispute among themselves and now there is no dispute between them . Hence a " No Dispute Award" is hereby passed .

4. This is my Award .

Dictated & Corrected by me .

V. RAM, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3579.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ वेस्ट रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/97 एवं 8/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41011/64/95- आई आर ( बी -1 ) , एल-41012/ 141 /2003- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th August , 2006

S.O. 3579.-In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. Nos . 2/97 & 8/03) of the Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North WestRailway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-8-2006 .

[No. L -41011 /64/95 - IR(B - I ) , L-41012/ 141/2003 - IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर सी आई टी आर नं. 2/97

नोटिस के उपरांत उभय पक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी ने क्लेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थना पत्र4-7-79 को कारपेंटर की नियुक्तिहेतु प्रस्तुत किया था । जिससे प्रतिपक्षी संकलन अधिकारी ने दिनांक 9-7-79 को ट्रेड टेस्ट के लिये बुलाया। प्रार्थी ने डाक्टरी परीक्षा पास की। जिसका पास होने का प्रमाण- पत्र दि. 12-7-79 को दिया । प्रतिपक्षी सं. 2 ने प्रार्थी को नैमतिक कारपेंटर के पद पर दिनांक 16-7-79 से नौ रूपये प्रतिदिन के आधार पर 60 दिन के लिये नियुक्त किया था । एवं सहायता हेतु एक बैलदार श्री मातादीन को भी भी 60 दिन के लिये 5/ - रुपये प्रतिदिन के आधार पर नियुक्ति किया था । दोनों श्रमिकों का सामुहिक नियुक्ति का आदेश दि. 16-6-79 को जारी किये गये थे । इसी आदेश में यह शर्त थी कि यातायात कार्यालय का नियमित खाली पद पहले भरे जाने पर या कार्य संतुष्ट न पाये जाने पर इनकी नियुक्ति 60 दिन पूर्व ही समाप्त कर दी जावेगी । इस नियुक्तिके लिये उप मुख्य लेखाधिकारी , अजमेर की स्वीकृति प्राप्त होने का उल्लेख भी था । प्रतिपक्षी सं. 2 ने दो माह के पश्चात् प्रार्थी को उप मुख्य लेखाधिकारी , अजमेर के कार्यालय को लौटाया जाना चाहिये था । किन्तु प्रार्थी और मातादीन की सेवाएं 13-9-79 से समाप्त कर दी गई । आगे अंकित किया है कि केवल प्रार्थी की ही सेवाएं समाप्त की दी और प्रार्थी के साथ मातादीन को सेवा में लगाये रखा और उसे 128 दिन कार्य करवाकर नियमित च. श्रे. क. बना दिया । जबकि प्रार्थी वरिष्ठ था । उसे भी 128 दिन कार्य पर रखते हुए नियमित करवाना चाहिए था । प्रार्थी ने नियुक्ति हेतु अनेक आवेदन पत्र दिये । लेकिन कोई विचार नहीं किया । महाप्रबंधक पश्चिम रेल्वे बम्बई के पत्र दि. 16-6-78 के अन्तगर्त 120 दिन तक कार्य करने वाले श्रमिक को स्क्रीन टेस्ट लेकर वरिष्ठता सूची में नाम अंकित करने का प्रावधान है । किन्तु प्रार्थी को यह अवधि पूरी नहीं करने दी । मातादीन को हमाल के पद पर नियुक्त किया गया । प्रार्थी का तर्क है कि संविधान का उल्लंघन और अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस है । अतः सेवा समाप्ति आदेश को चुनौती दी है । अंत में कारपेंटर के पद पर पुर्नस्थापित कर गत वेतन भत्ते दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है । रेफरेंस संख्या एल -41011/64/95/ आई आर/बी. 1

(दि. 4-3-97 )

सचिव , पश्चिम रेलवे कर्मचारी परिषद , अजमेर श्रमिक प्रेमशंकर ...प्रार्थी/यूनियन

बनाम

कम्पाईलेशन ऑफिसर, पश्चिम रेलवे , जी. एल. ओ. , अजमेर

... अप्रार्थी

प्रतिपक्षी ने उत्तर में अंकित किया है कि पश्चिम रेलवे का मुख्यालय बम्बई में स्थित होने के कारण यह रेफरेंस त्रुटिपूर्ण है । नियुक्तिशर्तों के अनुसार निश्चित् अवधि और निश्चित कार्य समाप्त हो जाने के पश्चात् अर्थात् 60 दिन के पश्चात् प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त की गई हैं । मातादीन ने विभिन्न समय पर 32 दिन और 128 दिन कार्य पूर्ण कर लेने से हमाल के पद पर नियुक्ति दी गई थी । जबकि प्रार्थी ने यह अवधि पूर्ण नहीं की थी । प्रार्थी ने कुल 60 दिन ही कार्य किया है । अंत में क्लेम निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की । समक्षः श्री गंगासिंह शेखावत , आर एच जे एस

प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री पी. डी. खन्ना अधिवक्ता प्रार्थी

अप्रार्थी की ओर से श्री वी. डी. भार्गव अधिवक्ता अप्रार्थी

अवार्ड

अजमेर, 4 जुलाई , 2006

डेस्क अधिकारी, श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली से प्राप्त रेफरेंस इस प्रकार है: -

प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम की सम्पुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-1 से 20 तक प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की है। प्रतिपक्षी ने रामजीलाल मीणा का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डी 1 से डी 15 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की गई हैं ।

उभय पक्ष का श्रवण किया और पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। प्रार्थी ने ए. आई. आर. 1993 एस. सी. 188 का दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किया।

"Whether the action of the western Railway Ajmer in terminating the services of Sh . Prem Shanker w.e.f. 13-9-79 is legal Justified and proper ? If not to what relief concerned workman is entitled to? " 7743

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

प्रतिपक्षी ने निम्न दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किये :-

1. 2001 ए आई आर एस. सी. 2681

2. 2002 ( 5 ) डब्ल्यू एल सी 166

3. 2002 ( 5 ) डब्ल्यू एल सी 155

4. 2002 ( 5 ) डब्ल्यू एल सी 455

मैने उक्त दृष्टांतों का ससम्मान अध्ययन किया। प्रस्तुत विवादः में प्रार्थी का नियुक्ति पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-3 महत्वपूर्ण है जो निम्न प्रकार है :-

" श्री प्रेम शंकर आत्मज श्री शिवलाल को नैमतिक कारपेंटर 60 दिन के लिये दिनांक 16-7-79 से रुपये 9 प्रतिदिन के आधार पर संकलन शाखा अजमेर में पे - बिलों की फाईल रैक पर ढक्कन लगवाने और अन्य रिपेयर करवाने हेतु नियुक्त किया जाता है। तथा इसकी सहायतार्थ एक बेलदार श्री मातादीन आत्मज श्री बंशीधर को भी 60 दिन की अवधिके लिये16-7-79 से रुपये 5 प्रतिदिन के आधार पर नियुक्त किया जाता है। यातायात कार्यालय का नियमित खाली पद पहले भरे जाने पर या कार्य संतुष्ट नहीं पाये जाने पर इनकी नियुक्ति 60 दिन पूर्व समाप्त कर दी जावेगी। इन नियुक्ति के लिये उप मुख्य लेखा अधिकारी कीस्वीकृत प्राप्त है। "

इस प्रकार इस नियुक्ति आदेश से स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति नैमतिक कारपेंटर के कार्य के लिये 60 दिनों के लिये एक निश्चित कार्य ढक्कन लगवाने एवं रिपेयर करवाने हेतु की गई थी और उसकी सहायता के लिये एक बेलदार मातादीन की भी इसी प्रकार नियुक्तिकी गई थी। खाली पद पहले भरे जाने या कार्य संतुष्ट नहीं पाये जाने पर सेवा पहले समाप्त कर देने की भी शर्त इस आदेश में अंकित है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति एक निश्चित अवधि और निश्चित कार्य के लिये सशर्त की गई थी। वेतन बिल प्रदर्श डी 5 के अनुसार प्रार्थी ने जुलाई में 16 दिन , प्रदर्श डी 6 के अनुसार अगस्त में 31 दिन और प्रदर्श डी 7 के अनुसार सितम्बर में 13 दिन कुल 60 दिन काकार्य किया। इसकी सम्पुष्टि उपस्थिति रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डी 16 से 18 से होती है । नियुक्ति आदेश में 60 दिन पश्चात् उप मुख्य लेखाधिकारी के पास भेजने की कोई शर्त नहीं है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी की सेवा नियुक्ति पत्र के शर्त के अनुसार समयावधि समाप्त होने व कार्य समाप्त होने के पश्चात् विधि सम्मत रूप से की गई है । प्रार्थी के साथ ही मातादीन की सेवा भी समाप्त की गई थी क्योंकि मातादीन ने अन्य अवधि में भी कार्य किया है और उसने मेन्युअल के अनुसार कुल 120 दिन से अधिक कार्य कर लिया। अतः हमाल के पद पर उसे नियमित नियुक्ति दी गई। इस प्रकार मातादीन का केस भिन्न प्रकार का है। इस प्रकार प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है।

आदेश

फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि पश्चिम रेलवे , अजमेर द्वारा श्री प्रेमशंकर की 13-9-79 से सेवा समाप्त करने का आदेश उचित एवं विधि सम्मत है । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

अवार्ड की प्रति नियमानुसार केन्द्र सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ भेजी जावे।

जी. एस. शेखावत , न्यायाधीश न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , अजमेर

(राजस्थान)

पीठासीन अधिकारीः श्री जी. एस. शेखावत , आरएचजेएस

प्रकरण संख्या सी. आई . टी. आर. 08/03 रेफरेंस नं. एल-41012/141/2003- आईआर ( बी- I ) दिनांक 3 /9-9-2003

नवलसिंह पुत्र घीसाराम कोहली , निवासी 834/30 , गुर्जर बस्ती, नगरा , अजमेर ( मृतक ) जरिये विधिक उत्तराधिकारीगण: - 1/1- श्रीमति कमला देवी धर्मपत्नी स्व. श्री नवलसिंह 1/2-तेजसिंह पुत्र स्व. श्री नवलसिंह आयु 19 वर्ष 1/3- प्रकाश पुत्र स्व. श्री नवलसिंह आयु 18 वर्ष 1/4- मनीष पुत्र स्व. श्री नवलसिंह, आयु 15 वर्ष, नाबालिग 1/5- कू. ज्योति पुत्री स्व. श्री नवलसिंह आयु 13 वर्ष नाबालिग प्रार्थी सं. 4 व 5 नाबालिग जरिये प्राकृतिक संरक्षिका माता प्रार्थी सं. 1/1 श्रीमति कमला देवी पत्नी स्व. श्री नवलसिंह प्रार्थीगण निवासी-834/30 , गुर्जर बस्ती नगरा , अजमेर

...प्रार्थीगण

बनाम

दीचीफ फैक्ट्री मैनेजर ( लोको ) , उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे, अजमेर ... अप्रार्थी उपस्थित

: श्री एन. के. गौतम , अधिवक्ता, प्रार्थीगण । श्री मनीष शर्मा , अधिवक्ता, अप्रार्थी । अजमेर , 24 जुलाई , 2006

अवार्ड

केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न प्रकार है : - "Whether the action of the management ofNorth Western Railway imposing the penalty of removal of Sh . Naval Singh from the services w.e.f. 4-5-99 is justified ? If not to what relief concerned workman is entitled to ? "

नोटिस के उपरांत उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । श्रमिक नवलसिंह का निधन18-10-2003 को होने के कारण 13-1-2005 को उसके विधिक प्रतिनिधिगण बनाये गये । जिन्होंने यह क्लेम पेश किया है। क्लेम में अंकित किया है कि नवलसिंह दि. 11-8-81 को अस्थाई खलासी के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ था फिर पदोन्नति के पश्चात्मोर्डर ग्रेड- II बना दिया गया। प्रतिपक्षीगण ने दि. 23-9-97 से 2-6-98 तक 252½दिन नवलसिंह को अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थित मानकर आदेश दि. 4-5-99 द्वारा सेवा से निष्कासित कर दिया। प्रार्थीगण के पास नवलसिंह की पूर्ण पत्रावली उपलब्ध नहीं है । प्रार्थीगण के पास निष्कासन आदेश मृतक द्वारा की गयी अपील दि. 22-6-2000 रेलवे 7744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) चिकित्सक का ड्यूटी प्रमाण पत्र 26-3-98 और शासित दि. 10-11-98 उपलब्ध है । नवलसिंह ने 14-2-98 से 25-3-98 तक अस्वस्थ रहने के पश्चात् 26-3-98 को रेलवे चिकित्सक का स्वास्थ्य प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत किया था । नवल सिंह को दिनांक 29-6-98 से 25-3-98 तक अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थित मानकर आदेश दि. 10-11-98 द्वारा एक सैट सुविधा पास रोकने की शसित त्रुटिपूर्ण दी है । सेवा निष्कासन आदेश के विरूद्व प्रस्तुत अपील का निर्णय प्रार्थीगण के पास उपलब्ध नहीं है। मृतक की 252½ दिन की अवधि में बीमारी के कारण अनुपस्थित रहा । श्रमिक मानसिक रोगी भी रहा । इस प्रकार अनुपस्थिति मृतक के नियंत्रण के बाहर थी पश्चातवर्ती अनुपस्थिति के दंड से पूर्ववर्ती अनुपस्थिति का दंड अधिक नहीं हो सकता। प्रतिपक्षी संपूर्ण पत्रावली उपलब्ध करवा देंगे तब पूर्ण क्लेम प्रस्तुत किया जावेगा। अंत में सेवामुक्तिको निरस्त कर मृत्यु तक सेवा को निरंतर मानते हुए पारिवारिक पेंशन अनुकंमा के आधार पर नियुक्ति दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।

जहां तक विभागीय जांच के न्याय के सिद्धांतों के अनुरूप होने के प्रश्न का संबंध है , प्रस्तुत विवाद में उभयपक्ष ने इस न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष अपने- अपने साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत कर दी है अतः विभागीय जांच विशेष महत्व नहीं रखती है। यह स्वीकृत तथ्य है कि श्रमिक नवलविंह 23-9-97 से 2-6-98 तक 252½ दिन अनुपस्थित रहा । प्रार्थी के अनुसार उसका स्वास्थ्य ठीक नहीं होने के कारण वह अनुपस्थित रहा किंतु विभागीय जांच में श्रमिक ने 14-12-97 से 13-2-98 और 14-2-98 से 26-3-98 के ही ड्यूटी प्रमाण- पत्र बिमारी के संबंध में प्रस्तुत किये है। अन्य अवधि का कोई प्रमाण - पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । प्रदर्श एम -5 स्वास्थ्य प्रमाण - पत्र है जिसमें नवलसिंह किस अवधि से किस अवधि तक बीमार रहा इस संबंध में कोई कॉलम नहीं है न हीकोई प्रविष्टि है किंतु नवलसिंह 26-3-98 को कार्यग्रहण करने हेतु आरोग्य होने का यह प्रमाण- पत्र है। प्रदर्श एम-6 के अनुसार रेलवे डॉक्टर ने 14-12-97 से 13-2-98 तक नवलसिंह के बीमार होने का उल्लेख किया है। इस प्रकार नवलसिंह की बीमारी के संबंध में केवल यही प्रमाण- पत्र है जो केवल दो माह की बीमारी का है अन्य कोई प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं है । नवलसिंह ने अपने पत्र प्रदर्श एम-4 में अनुपस्थिति का कारण अपनी पत्नी के गठिया रोग से पीड़ित होने के कारण अचानक तबियत खराब होना अंकित किया है किंतु इस संबंध में कोई प्रमाण- पत्र नहीं है । स्वयं की बीमारी का भी उल्लेख किया है किंतु इस संबंध में भी केवल एक ही प्रमाण- पत्र जैसा कि एम -6 है , वही प्रस्तुत किया गया है । इस प्रकार मृतक नवलसिंह विभागीय जांच के समय अनुपस्थिति का कारण बीमार होना प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है न ही इसके विधिक प्रतिनिधि न्यायालय के समक्ष अनुपस्थिति का कारण बीमारी प्रमाणित कर सके हैं । विभागीय जांच में साक्षियों के बयान लेकर , बचाव का अवसर देकर जांच कार्यवाही की प्रति उपलब्ध करवाकर अनुसनात्मक कार्यवाही संपादित की है । प्रतिपक्षीगण ने उत्तर में अंकित किया है कि नवलसिंह की अस्थाई खलासी के पद पर 11-8-81 को नियुक्ति हुई थी और नियमानुसार वरिष्ठता सेवा रिकार्ड एवं ट्रेड टैस्ट पास करने पर पदोन्नतियां दी गयी। श्रमिक के 252½ दिन अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण विभागीय जांच कर श्रमिक को सुनवाई का समुचित अवसर प्रदान कर जांच रिपोर्ट की प्रति उपलब्ध करवाकर सेवा से निष्कासित किया गया था। श्रमिक ने दि. 14-2-98 से 25-3-98 तक का स्वस्थ्ता प्रमाण पत्र दि. 26-3-98 टिकट नंबर खुलवाने के समय प्रस्तुत किया था। अपील के निर्णय की प्रति पत्र दि. 20-9-2000 द्वारा प्रेषित कर दी थी। मानसिक रोग से पीड़ित रहने का नवलसिंह ने कोई प्रमाण- पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया नवलसिंह पूर्व में भी 1995 में 192 दिन , 96 में 172 दिन, 97 में 262 दिन , 98 में 312 दिन , तथा 99 में निष्कासन की तिथि तक 67 दिन अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित रहा। अंत में क्लेम निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की है ।

क्लेम की संपुष्टि में तेजसिंह और कमला देवी का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब. 1 से 4 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की। प्रतिपक्षी की ओर से नंदकिशोर का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एस -1 से 17 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत की।

साक्षी मस्तान खां, जयसिंह और यशपालसिंह के बयान के नीचे नवलसिंह के हस्ताक्षर भी हैं । अतः विभागीय जांच में सुनवाई का अवसर दिया गया । इस न्यायालय में चली जांच में भी श्रमिक के विधिक प्रतिनिधियों को साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर दिया उनके शपथ- पत्र पर प्रतिपक्षी ने प्रतिपरीक्षण किया और प्रतिपक्षी के साक्षी से प्रार्थी के विधिक प्रतिनिधियों के अभिभाषक ने प्रतिपरीक्षण किया। संपूर्ण अनुपस्थिति का कारण नवलसिंह के बीमार होने को प्रार्थी पक्ष प्रमाणित नहीं कर सका है । इस प्रकार मेरे विनम्र मत में प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति विधि- सम्मत् है । श्रमिक के आचरण , पूर्व की अनुपस्थिति को मद्दे - नजी रखे हुए सेवामुक्ति का दंड अत्यधिक नहीं माना जा सकता।

उभयपक्ष का श्रवण किया , पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। प्रार्थी के विद्वान अभिभाषक ने निम्न दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किये :-

आदेश

1. 1992 सी. एस. जे. ( एच. सी. ) 48 ,

2. 2003 ( 2 ) ए. आई. एस. एल. जे. 90 ,

3. 2000 ( 1 ) आरएलआर 631

फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि उत्तर पश्चिम रेल्वे के प्रबंधन द्वारा श्री नवलसिंह मृतक की सेवा-समाप्ति का आदेश दिनांक4-5-99 विधि- सम्मत् है । अतः उसके विधिक प्रतिनिधिगण को कोई अनुतोष प्रदान नहीं किया जा सकता है ।

जी. एस. शेखावत , न्यायाधीश उक्त दृष्टांतों का ससम्मान् अध्ययन किया। [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 8 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3580.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्धं नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. II , चंढीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 341/2के5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-41012/227/2003- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th August, 2006

S.O. 3580.- In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 341/ 2k5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court- II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employes in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-8-2006.

7745

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

The matter remained under the consideration of CGIT-cum -Labour Court - I, till the same was transferred to this Tribunal and case file received and registered on 16th August, 2005. By that time the workman had already filed the Claim Petition. The Management filed the Written Statement on 21st Dec. , 2005. They also filed the photo copies ofthe inquiry proceedings . The workman filed the rejoinder. It was submitted by the Management that this is the case in which the department had held also the domestic inquiry against the workman and the workman has challenged the finding of the inquiry inter alia on the ground of fairness of the inquiry conducted, therefore , the question of fairness of inquiry may be considered and decided as a preliminary issue in the matter . The workman has not opposed this submission . He has filed the Written arguments in support ofhis claim made in the statement of claim. The representative of the workman and the Counsel for the Management have also submitted the oral arguments.

Ihave gone through the file and have also considered the submissions made by the parties for and against the fairness of inquiry conducted in this case .

[No. L-41012/227/2003 - IR(B-I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR, COURT- II CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI KULDIP SINGH Case No. 1. D.No 341 /2k5 .

Registered on 16-08-2005

Date ofDecision 27-07-2006 .

Shri P. C. Bunger C/o Shri H. K. Sharma, Secretary, Uttariya Railway Karmchari Union, EF 430, Krishan Nagar, N. G. Road, Jalandhar

Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi - 110001

Respondent

AMEARANCE

For the Workman

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a number of cases has said that an enquiry is not an empty formality but essential conditions to the legality of the disciplinary order. Inotherwords before the delinquent workman is dismissed from service for misconduct the employer should hold regular enquiry into the misconduct and dismissal without holding a regular inquiry would be a illegality. It has also been statedby them that the disciplinary inquiry has to be quasi -judicial inquiry held according to othe principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially because the charges of misconduct , if proved, will result riot only in deprivation of livelihood of the workmanbutwill also attach stigma to his character. The Courts have, therefore, attached a considerable importance to the holding of fair and regular inquiry in the cases of mis-conduct of the delinquent official before awarding him punishment . In support of the requirement of holding an inquiry, Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerated the following reasons for holding an inquiry,

Mr. H.K Sharma

AR

Forthe Management

Mr. P.P Khurana, Advocate.

AWARD

The Govt . of India vide notification No.L -41012/227 / 2003 - IR(B -I) dated 30-01-2004 referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, NewDelhi imposing the penalty of reducing the pay /wages w.e.f.7-06-1994 isjust and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?" 2538G1/06-31

(1) .... on wider powers of adjudication now, the Tribunal will have to give congent reason for not accepting the conclusions of the inquiry officer in a case where a proper inquiry has been held and a correct finding is arrived at regarding the misconduct of the workman;

(ii) it will aiso enable the employer persuad the Tribunal to accept the inauiry as proper and the finding as correct ;

(iii) by holding a proper inquiry. the employer will escape the charge of having acted arbitrarily and mala fide ; and

(iv) the holding a proper and valid inquiry will conduce to the harmonious and healthy relations between the employer and the workmen and it will serve the cause of industrial peace.

7746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

appeal against the order . Thus , the proceedings of the inquiry were nullity. The penalty of reduction in rank by one stage imposed upon him was bad in law as the notice ofpenalty was served on him on 7th June , 1994, whereas he retired on 30th June , 1994. The workman was also denied the re- fixation of his salary in terms of cadre structuring done by the Management . The workman has prayed for a number of claims as noted in para No.17 of this Claim Petition and submitted that for the record is with the Management and if theydo not produce the same , the photo copies submitted by the workman be taken on record and adverse inference he drawn against the Management .

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman on a number of grounds .It is their preliminary objections that the petitioner is not a workman since he was working in the Grade of 2000-3200. Besides he was working in the supervisory capacity; that the workman approached the CAT , Chandigarh for a relief of regularization of his leave period but later on he did not persue his petitions which was dismissed for default on 7th Dec. , 1992 and for that reason his present petition is not maintainable .

The workman in his statement of claim has stated that he was an employee in the Northern Railway assigned the clerical and operational work, to examine the claim regarding non -delivery of goods , of damage caused to the consignments sent through the railways and certain other job; and that there was no staff working under him nor he supervised the working of any official or did he withdrew their salary. His attendance was being checked by his superior officers who also drew and disbursed salary to him; that the workman had proceeded on leave from 17th Feb. , 1989 up to 3rd March , 1989, on the expiry ofwhich, he requested for extension of leave on account ofhis ill health; that he had developed abnormal pain and other complication which he informed the Management and the nearest doctor, but they did not respond to his request , therefore , he received the treatment from a private practitioner . He kept on submitting applications for grant of sick leave to him, but the Management did not respond nor conveyed him that his leave has been refused and he should join the duties; that from 29th March , 1992 he was declared fit to resume his duties, by the Private practitioner and He reported for duty on 30th March , 1992 , in office of ChiefClaim Officer, New Delhi but was refused to join his duties ; that from 29th March , 1992 he was given declared fit to resume his duties, by the Private practitioner and he reported for duty on 30th March, 1992 , in office of Chief Claim Officer , New Delhi . He also submitted the duplicate copies of his applications for grant of leave , in the office of the Chief Claim Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi by Registered Post aswell as in the receipt section of that office . That on his inquiry, he was told that the Management will inform him about the date he could join his duties . On the other hand, the Management issued him the notice on 6th June , 1992 to get him medically examined by Senior Medical Officer, New Delhi for his fitness . However, the concerned Medical Officer refused to examine him and he was directed to get him examined by the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Ferozepur or Jalandhar ; that he was declared fit for service bythe Chief Physician , New Delhi but despite that he was not allowed to join his duties .

On merit it is their submission that the workman had applied for leave for the period 17th Feb. , to 3rd March, 1989 , which was sanctioned . He was further granted leave up to 15th March , 1989 , but thereafter , he absented from duty during the period 3rd April , 1989 to 29th Oct. , 1992. Denying the fact that the workman remained in the railway Hospital, it is stated that the workman was issued notice on 26th April, 1989 under R/ C AD asking him to report for duty but the letter was received back undelivered . The workman retained first class duty card pass No.15591 , with him , without authority and that the workman was issued chargesheet for his mis - conduct punishable with major penalty and the inquiry was conducted against him . In the inquiry all the charges were proved. The workman was provided with the copy of the inquiry report on 29th April , 1994. He was awarded the penalty of reduction by one stage in the time scale from 7th June , 1994 till 30th June , 1994, the day, he was to superannuate , for being absent from duty unauthorisely and for keeping the duty card pass illegally, during the period of leave. He was not entitled for promotion as standard form 5 was pending against him under the railway conduct rules .

Denying the assertion that he was called by the railway administration and extended an assurance to persuade him to withdraw his case from the CAT, it is stated by them that nobody appeared for the workman before the CAT and the petition was dismissed for default . Reiterating that the workman was provided with the copy of the inquiry findings on 29th April , 1994 , it is submitted by them that the workman did not submit his defence statement ; and thatother assertion of the workman in the Claim Statement are a matter of record . They have prayed for deciding the reference in favour of the Management declaring that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The claim of the workman further is that the Management considered the selection for the post ofGroup B on 25th July, 1992, to which the workman was also eligible but he was over looked . He was not allowed to join his duties and the Management followed the unfair Labour practice .He approached the CAT, Chandigarh , by a petition but was persuaded to withdraw the same by the Management . However , the Management did not honour their commitment and instead issued him a chargesheet for his having left the country without permission , and for retaining the duty pass during leave period. According to him , the Management appointed highly prejudiced Enquiry Officer who got the workman to sign the inquiry report . The Management did not provide copy of the inquiry report to the workman and still imposed the penalty on him . He was also not informed that he can make the representation. He made several representations but without any reply . Only afew days before his retirement, he was informed about the penalty imposed on him . The Management denied him the opportunity of hearing and of making the

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through record .

7747

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

भारत का राजपत्र :

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

was also entitled to nominate a defence helper and could ask for additional documents to prove his case . He also gets the right to submit his arguments and after the report of inquiry is made , is entitled to a copy of the same and then the notice to explain his petition . He further gets right to be told that he can file the appeal against the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The main thrust of the workman is that he was not provided with the report of inquiry, therefore , he could not submit explanation to the DisciplinaryAuthority about the finding of the E.O. nor he could file an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment on him.

I have examined the claim of the workman . In my opinion the claim of the workman does not hold good in the face of a letter issued by the Disciplinary Authority dated 30th Dec. , 1992 in which the workman , under his own hand, received the copy of the inquiry report , " received on 31st Dec. , 1992 " . This letter reads " Please refer to your application dated 21st Dec. , 1992 , and find herewith the copies of the PO's report and Shri Dasondha Singh CMI's statement dated 28th March , 1990 for further necessary action at your end. " This letter clearly proves that the workman received a copy of the inquiry officer's report and not only that , the copy of statement of Dasondha Singh dated 28th March , 1990 , was also provided to him. We further find a photo copy of the inquiry report dated 29thApril , 1994 , made by the inquiry officer. On the first page ofinquiry report , there is endorsement under the hand ofMr. P.C. Bungar, the workman , where he recorded that he has received the copy of the report containing pages from 1 to 10. This he recorded on the inquiry report on 29th April 1994, the day, when the Inquiry Officer signed the inquiry report . Thus, the evidence available on record belies the claim of the workman that he was not provided with a copy of the inquiry report, therefore , he could not submit explanation to the Disciplinary Authority about the report of the inquiry officer nor he could make the appeal before the Appellate Authority..

It is the claim of the workman that he was charge sheeted for a major penalty under the Railway Servants Discipline appeal rules 1968. Under rules 9 & 10 thereof the charged officer was entitled to get the statement of articles of charges , statement of imputations , list of documents relied upon and list of witnesses to be produced in the case by the Management . He was also entitled to submit his defence within specified period . The Management , thereafter , was required to appoint an inquiry officer, Presenting officer and nominate a defence helper of the choice ofworkman . The workman further gets the right to demand additional documents . The workman was also required to be provided with the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the Management himself or through his defence helper and then state his defence . He also gets the right to submit his arguments , get a copy of the inquiry report and then a notice from the discipline party to submit his explanation as to why the action proposed in the inquiry report be not taken against him and then a notice to show as to why the penalty proposed be not imposed upon him . He further gets the right to file the appeal , review or revision . The claim ofthe workman is that the Management conducted ex- parte inquiry against him earlier in which the presenting officer tied the witnesses to the version of Management and then initiated the second inquiry, produced the same witnesses , who being the employees of the Management could not go against the version , they had given earlier , therefore , the same conclusionswere drawn in the inquiry. It is further his case thatthe Management did not allow the workman a defence help ofhis choice . Thirdly, the notice for imposing penalty was issued without affording an opportunity to the charged officer to submit his representation against the inquiry report . The workman was also not allowed to examine defence witnesses rather he was cross examined by the inquiry officer himself against the spirit of the rules; and that the Management further failed in its duty to rebut the statement of the workman that he was made to withdraw his case beforethe CA T on the assurance the Management ; that the workman was never supplied with the copy of the inquiry report , despite repeated requests , so as to make him to file the appeal . For all these reasons the inquiry conducted, the penalty imposed is bad in law, therefore , the same may be quashed.

I have considered the submission made by the workman in support ofhis claim . I find that his claim is not supported by any cogent evidence rather the record of the file shows that the workman has taken the support of lies toprove his claim in which he has utterly failed. There is no denying ofthe fact that in a domestic inquiry the proceeding should be fair and the principle of natural justice should never be lost sight off. As per the Railway Servant Discipline Appeal rules 1968 , the workman was entitled to get the statement of Articles of charges , statement of imputation , list of documents and witnesses to be produced by the Management in the case , besides the right to specify his defence. The Disciplinary Authority wasfurther required to convey to the workman the name of the Inquiry Officer in case he himself did not opt to hold the inquiry; and that of the Presenting Officer . The workman

Onrecord I find the copy of the statement of the workman running into 7 pages which itself shows that the workman was given fair opportunity to explain the evidence available on record against him and the replies given by him do not convince even to a lay man that he was so seriously ill or was so deeply engaged in the ill health of hiswife that he could not inform the Management by any mode worthy of credit . It has been claimed by him that he lived in a town named Phagwara where there must be facilities of telephone, telegram and post office then why hedid not inform his department that he is in such a situation that he cannot report for duty . In short the answers given byhim are not convincing . He further failed in his duty to produce any defience evidence and has shifted the burden to the shoulders of the Management claiming that the Management did not provide him the opportunity to produce evidence in his defence . On record , I find a letter under the hand of the workman P.C. Bungar dated 30th November , 1993 , thereby he named Darshan Singh as his defence witness and the inquiry officer permitted him to produce the said witness in his defence. There is also on record the copy of the interim order of the inquiry officer 7748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] dated 21st Dec. , 1993 , which reads that no defence witness has been produced by the charged officer , despite having been given more than one extra opportunity . It was in these circumstances that the defence evidence was closed . This documents shows that the workman was given more than one opportunity to produce his evidence , but he did not produce any and the workman acknowledged the receipt of copy of the order of the inquiry officer in this regard under his own hand .

The fairness of the Management speaks for itself when we find that the order holding of second inquiry on the re-appearance of the workman before them, even when they had ample evkience to show that the Management had takert every step to serve the workman with the notices to report for duty, but they found that the workman had left the place without informing them. The Management even served the notices to the workman through his daughters who neither disclosed the place where their father was nor themselves conveyed to the Management as to why their father was not attending his duties . Is it possible that ifthe parents were so seriously ill that their daughters could not seek help or at least take steps to inform the employer so as to save the job of their father. It is also worth note that the workman thouglı claimed to have remained involved in his own illness or in the illness of his wife, did not disclose as towho attend them during the time of illness. Ifthe workman was under acute depression , then how could he look after his ailing wife . There is another aspect of this . The railways has established hospitals at different places in the country where the specialties and super specialties are available. The workman did not report for check ups in those hospitals and took the option to get treated by private practitioner which would have meant more expensive and lessefficiency.

I have considered the law referred to by the representative of the workman and the Counsel for the Management. I have come to the conclusion that the copy ofthe inquiry report , was provided to the workman and his claim that he had not been provided with the copy ofthe report is wrong . Presuming and not admitting that the workman had not received the inquiry report the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad V/ s B. Karunakar reported as 1994 1 LLJ 162 has directed that in a case when inquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee , in the discipline proceedings , the Court and the Tribunal should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the delinquent employee, ifhe has not already secured one before coming tothe Court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show cause as to how his or her case got prejudice because of the non- supply of report . It is only in case the Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. It is on record that the Management furnished the copy of the inquiry report alongwith their Written Statement on 21st Dec. , 2005 , a copy ofwhich was provided to the workman. The workman never raised the plea before the Tribunal that he is not in possession of the inquiry report nor could he raise such a plea for the reason that if he had no knowledge of the inquiry reports then how he challenged the same in the statement of claim and subsequent pleadings . He never requested the Court to get him the copy of the inquiry report. I further find that the workman has failed to show me as to in what manner he was prejudiced for want of the inquiry report . As stated above the workman is shown to have been provided with the copies of the charge sheet , a list of witnesses, the list of documents to be used against the workman in the inquiry. He was also provided with the opportunity to lead the evidence in defence . He was also provided with the assistance of defence representatives . Heattended all the proceedings in the inquiry. It has also been shown that the workman was provided with the photocopy of the inquiry officer's report on the very day, it was signed by the Enquiry Officer . So the workman has failed to show me that he was prejudiced in his defence in the inquiry, therefore , the inquiry is bad for that reason .

After careful consideration of the record available on the file, I am of the opinion that the Management had conducted a fair and regular inquiry not only once but twice and the punishment imposed is not disproportionate to the mis- conduct of the workman . The action of the Management in imposing penalty on the workman is just and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Inview of the discussion made above , the award is passed in the terms stated above . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and thefile be consigned to records after due completion .

I have also looked to the case from the angle of the punishment awarded to the workman , whether the disciplinary authority was fair enough to award punishment on the basis of the evidence available on record . It is true that this Tribunal is not sitting as a Court of appeal against the order ofDisciplinary Authority, but even looking from a distance on the evidence available on record , I feel that the Management was most considerate to take a lenient view in awarding the punishment to the workman who has stated the facts , nothing but bundle of lies . The Management produced three witnesses in the inquiry, to whom defence representative cross-examined at length . The witnesses produced are the responsible officers ofthe Management and the workman has failed to show their animous against the workman . I fail to understand as to how the workman claims that the witnesses have spoken in favour of the Management being in their employment whereas some of them are already retired from service and theywere the colleagues of the workman against whom he has shown nothing to presume that they had made false statement against him .

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3581.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. II , चंढीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 797/ 2 के5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/139/91- आई आर( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th August, 2006

S.O. 3581.- In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 797/ 2k5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofPatiala and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-8-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 139/ 91 -IR(B-I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, CHANDIGARH PRESIDINGOFFICER :

SHRI KULDIP SINGH Case NO . I.D. No. 797/2k5 .

Registered on 6-09-2005

Date ofDecision 25-07-2006.

Shri J. C. Pandey Through General Secretary, State Bank ofPatiala Staff Union, 366/7 , Panchkula

Petitioner

Versus

The ChiefGeneral Manager, State Bank of Patiala H. O. the Mall , Patiala

7749

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

satisfied that the workman is not interested to prosecute this case. Since the parties have already filed their pleadings , have lead their evidence and produced the documents , therefore , the case is being decided on merit .

The Govt. of India vide notification No. L- 12012/134/ 91 dated 3rd July, 1991 referred the following matter for the consideration of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the General Manager, State Bank of Paitala , Patiala is not designating Shri J.C Pandey, Clerk/Typistto the post of Telex/ Teleprinter Operator in Zonal Office , Jalandhar against the existing post is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

The parties on getting the notice of the reference appeared . The workman filed his Claim Petition , to which theManagement filed the Written Statement . The workman filed the reapplication and his affidavit . The Management filedthe affidavitof their Personal Manager, Charanjeet Lal Arora in support of their pleadings . They also placed on record the photo copies of the documents which were exhibited as M-2 to M-8 . The workman appeared as a witness whereas the Management examined Shri Arora in support oftheir claim.

Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

Ashwani Kumar

N. K. Zakhmi For the Management

Advocate .

AWARD

The workman is not present. It is stated that he has expired . Mr. Raj Kaushik who was appearing for the workman earlier states that he has contacted the LR's of the deceased workman but they are not interested to follow the case . This gives rise to the presumption that the LR's of the deceased workman are not interested to prosecute the case.Theworkman had filed the Claim Petition through the General Secretary of State Bank of Patiala StaffUnion , but the General Secretary has also not bothered to comes appear on behalf of the workman . Therefore , the Court is The claim of the workman , as made out in the statement of Claim Petition , is that the Management has not framed policy/rules with regard to the posting of Telex Operators/Tele Printers whereas they are required to frame the same since the designation of Daftri/Head Armed Guard in the sub staff, and Teller and Cashier , in the clerical cadre fortheir seniority is counted stationwise ; that the workman wasposted in the Zonal Office , who demanded opportunity towork as aTele . Printer operator, as and when the person working on that post proceeded on leave , but he was denied the opportunity; that the workman being a Trade Union Leader , organized the workers and was elected as General Secretary of Staff Union in the year 1984. The already existing Union, which was pro - Management could not digest the workman having been appointed General Secretary of a rival Trade Union , with the connivance of Management, got the workman transferred from the Zonal Officeto Region No.1 , Office Jalandhar . According to him thepost ofTele -Printer Operator fell vacant twice thereafter, but he was denied the opportunity to work thereon, whereas other persons were transferred from Region No. 1 to Zonal Office as Tele Printer Operator . That the workman was a senior most employee in the Branch of the Management Bank, but he was denied the posting on the post which carried the special allowance . Thus , the Management adopted the policy of unfair labour practice . He has prayed fordeclaring the action of the Management unfair practice and the workman be granted special allowance at the rate of145/-p.m. w.e.f. 4th Sep. , 1990 along with the interest at the rate of80% p.a.

The Management filed reply to the claim of the workman and stated that the Petition is not maintainable formis-joinder and non -joinder of the necessary parties and for want ofjurisdiction . Denying the fact that the Telex operator should be appointed station-wise it is stated by 7750

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2,2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

them that they are appointed on unit - wise basis and not station-wise basis. According to them, at the time oftransfer of R.K. Soni in the computer centre , the workman was posted in the Regional Office and not in the Zonal Office , therefore , he was not given the designation of Telex/Tele Printer. The present petition is not maintainable as the claim made is not specific and it is not shown on what basis the claim has been made ; hence , the reference is not maintainable .

On merit it is submitted by the Management that there is a policy with regard to the posting of Telex/Tele Printer ; that on 12th Jan. , 1987, when the workman was posted in the Zonal Office , Jalandhar, Shri S.N. Batra was working as Telex - operator , but no official allowance was paid by the Management to any of the Tele Printer Operators appointed in leave arrangement . It is also their case that the averments made in para 3 , 4 & 5 are not correct. It is claimed by them that Shri Gurbachan Singh was transferred to Zonal Office , Jalandhar for administrative reasons and he was senior to the workman . There is no doubt that the workman was senior most clerk/Typist at Jalandhar , but he was not designated as Tele- operator as he was in the Regional Office . Denying that they have ever practiced unfair labour practice , it is stated by them that the workman has no claim, therefore, the reference may be answered against him .

by the rival Trade Union, close to the Management , therefore, he was transferred from Zonal Office to Regional Office and denied the right to be posted as Tele Printer Operator and thus he was put to loss of special allowance atthe rate of 145 days . In support ofhis claim the workman hasfailed to place on record any standing order , bipartite settlement or any authority by which he was entitled to be posted as Tele Operator . He has also failed to produce any rule or order by which he could not be transferred from the Zonal Office to Regional Office or vice versa. In his own statement he admitted that Mr. S.N. Batra, who was working as Teleprinter Operator , was senior to him. He further admitted that he had never worked at the place ofMr. Batra when the later proceeded on leave . He also admitted that Gurbachan Singh was senior to him . Mr. C.L. Arora , Personal Manager in the Zonal Office in his affidavit as well as in the statement, he made in the Court, stated that noperson, posted against the arrangement ofMr. S.L. Batra, was ever paid officiating allowance . He further stated that the workman never officiated as Tele Printer Operator.He further stated that Gurbachan Singh was transferred on administrative ground as he was senior to the workman. Hefurther statedthat when Balwinder Singh was designated as Teleprinter operator the workman was posted as Data Entry Operator and both the posts carried the allowance . According to him , as per the existing pattern , the Telex/ Tele PrinterOperator were appointed on the basis ofunit- wise/departmental/branch- wise seniority and not on the basis of Station- wise seniority and since the workman was not posted in the Zonal Office therefore , he was not given thedesignation of Teleprinter Operator .

The workman appeared as a witness on 3rd June, 1993. In his cross examination he admitted that Mr. S.N. Batra was senior to him and so was Gurbachan Singh; that the Management had transferred to him to Region No. 1 whereas Gurbachan Singh was transferred to the Zonal Office . He admitted that he had refused to work as a Data- Entry Operator ; and that the posts of Data Entry Operator and Telex Operator are carrying the allowances .

Mr. C.L. Arora who appeared as a witness for the Management stated that the post of Tele Printer is an allowance carrying post which is given to the senior most clerk. However it is not a promotion post; and that Gurbachan Singh being the senior most was transferred from Regional Office to Zonal Office and was given the post of Tele Printer Operator. He denied that the workman was purposely transferred not to give him post of Tele Printer Operator as was suggested.

I have gone through the file .

I do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman could not be transferred from Zonal Office to the Regional Office of the Bank ; and that he was denied thedesignation of Teleprinter Operator and hisjuniors were given that designation . The workman has also not been able to show that as to how the management practiced the unlawful labour practice . It has been shown that the workmanwas appointed as Data Entry Operator which also carriedthe same amount of allowance and was equivalent post, but he did not join . Thus , in my opinion the workman has failedto show that the action of the General Manager , State Bank of Patiala in not designating the workman , J.C. Pandey, to the post of Telex/Teleprinter Operator in Zonal Office, Jalandhar was illegal and unjustified .As per record theredid not exist any post ofTelex/Teleprinter Operator in the office where the workman was posted at that time, therefore, the question of his being designated ás Teleprinter Operator did not arise . In my opinion the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered in affirmative holding that as the workman has failedto show any right to be designated as a Telex/Tele PrinterOperator in the Zonal Office, Jalandhar . The workman istherefore not entitled to any relief. The award is passed in these terms . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer In substance the claim of the workman is that the Management had not formulated any policy or rules with regard to the posting of Telex Operator/ Tele Printer Operator; that the Management , with malafide intension, and following unfair labour practice transferred the workman from the Zonal Office to the Regional Office, Jalandhar and transferred Shri Gurbachan Singh to the Zonal Office and posted him as Tele Printer Operator, a postwhich carried special allowance at the rate of 145; that theManagement , therefore, denied the workman the benefit ofbeing posted as Tele Printer Operator against the post available in the Zonal Office . He claimed that since he had organized Trade Union Activities and established a counter Trade Union in the Management Bank which was not liked 7751 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली, 8 अगस्त 2006

C. L. isjustified? If so , what relief are these workmen entitled to?"

का.आ. 3582,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद I , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 164/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/110/99- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th August, 2006

S.O. 3582.- In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 164/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Dhanbad , I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-8-2006 .

[No. L-20012/ 110/99- IR( C-I ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I AT DHANBAD

2. The case of the sponsoring union is that S/Shri Ram Prasad Prajapati and 24 others , whose names find place in the list enclosed with the reference order, have beenengagedby the management of Kathara Coal Washery ofM/s. C. C. L. for maintenance of railway siding and also for up -dating, cleaning of railway line in the Marshalling Yard of Kathara Washery through out the year from the year 1991. According to them, there are 6 Rly . lines in the Marshalling Yard ofKathara Coal Washery and in order to transport washed coal and raw coal these railway lines are very much important and nature of jobs performed by the concernedworkmen are of permanent and perennial nature . According to them, they have been working for more than 8 years , but they are not getting proper wages and the management in order to deprive them the proper wages etc. have been disbursing their wages through a so -called contractor, Mithilesh Dutta Dwivedi , but in fact , they are the employees of the management of Kathara Coal Washery. The management is doing all such unfair labour practice in order to deprive them from proper wages , overtime, bonus and other fringe benefits Provident Fund, Gratuityetc. Therefore, they have prayed for regularisation in the permanent roll of the management of Kathara Coal Washery.

In the matter ofa Reference u/ s . 10( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Reference No. 164/1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of KatharaWashery of M/s . C. C. Ltd. And

Their Workman .

PRESENT : Shri Sarju Prasad, PresidingOfficer. APPEARANCES :

FortheEmployers

Shri D. K. Verma,

Advocate

For the Workmen

Shri D. Mukherjee, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 3rd August, 2006

AWARD

ByOrder No. L-20012/110/ 99-1R (C-I ) dated 4-8-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1) and Sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute foradjudication to this tribunal:

3.The management has admitted that there is a railway siding and Marshalling Yard ofKathara Coal Washery which ispractically the life line of that washery because washed coal istransported from the washery to captive power plant and raw coal is also being transported to the washery. But according to them, they have got their own permanent workmen for doing maintenance job and only on few occasion they have engaged Mithilesh Dutta Dwivedi as contractor when occasion arose for changing rail sleepers and filling of ballast materials on the railway track, otherwise the maintenance work is being carried by the permanent workmen ofthe Coal Washery. The management has pleaded that the establishment of the management is registered under Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, but at the same time they have admitted that the contractor is not a licensee contractor under the said Act and has pleaded that it is not required because the contractor is not required to engage more than 19 workers at any time . According to the management, some ofthe persons whose names find place in the list might be the workers of the contractor , but there is no relationship ofemployer and employees between the management and the concerned persons . Therefore , this dispute is not maintainable and the concerned workmen cannot be regularised and permanent workmen of the management .

"Whether the demand of the union for regularisation of S/Shri Ram Prasad Prajapati and 24 other workmen (asper list enclosed ) on permanent roll of C. C. L. from the management of Kathara Washery, M/ s . C.

4. The sponsoring union has examined one witness (WW- 1 ) in support of its case and has filed attendance register duly signed by the P.W.I. of the management . From the attendance register it goes to show that the concerned 7752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Officer . From the materials on record it appears that the concerned persons are working round the year in the maintenance work of the railway track of Kathara Coal Washery which is very much essential for the transportation ofcoal from washery to captive power plant and also for transportation of raw coal into the washery and the work of the concerned persons is more than 240 days in a calendar year . Since they are working from the year , 1991 regularly but they are not getting proper wages nor they are getting the Provident Fund contribution and other benefits which a permanent worker is entitled to, therefore, it amounts to unfair labour practice. The so -called .contractor is nothing but a camouflage because the management has not produced any registration certificate requires for engagement of contractor not the contractor ishaving any licence and moreover, the so - called contractor has been engaged for a very brief period but the concerned workmen are working round the year, therefore it appears that the concerned persons might have been engaged through contractor but they are working since 1991 and now they have become the workmen of the management of Kathara Coal Washery and therefore they deserved to be regularised as permanent employees of the management .

6. In the result, the following award is rendered:

persons in all 25 persons have been working since iong round the year and their attendance is more than 240 days in a year. The plea of the management that the contractor is not required to obtain licence under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 as the contractor never engaged more than 19 workers at a time , is falsified bythe attendance register which also contains the signature ofthe representative of the management . The management has produced two files relating to the contract works provided to Mithilesh Dutta Dwivedi but they have not produced the tender register nor they have produced any tender notice inviting the tenders . It appears that all the time only one contractor has been engaged by the management . Although the management has pleaded that the contractor used to be engaged for a very brief period and the bill submitted by such contractor is also of a brief period but the attendance register which has been signed by the representative of the management also it is clearly established that the concerned workmen worked round the year. Therefore , a vital question arises if the contractor is engaged for a very brief period then under whom the concerned workmen worked for the rest of the period . Apparently they are working under the direct control of the management of Kathara Coal Washery for the rest of the period . Moreover, the contractor is not having any licence , there is no tender notice , no tender register has been produced, there is no agreement between the so- called contractor and the management , therefore on lifting the vail it can be safely presumed that the plea of contract workers is nothing but a camouflage in order to conceal the real fact .

The demand of the union for regularisation of S /Shri Ram Prasad Prajapati and 24 other workmeri ( as per list enclosed) is justified and they are entitled for regularisation on the permanent roll of Kathara Coal Washery of M/s . C.C. Ltd. Accordingly, the management is directed to regularise the concerned workmen on the permanent roll of Kathara Coal Washery of C.C.L. within 30 days from the dateofpublication of the award.

SARJU PRASAD, Presiding Officer

L-20012/110/99 - IR(CD)

1. विसुन घासी

2. राम प्रसाद प्रजापती

3. मोहन ठाकुर

4. धर्मसिंह

5. त्रिभूवन घांसी

6. खिरोजर प्रजापती

7. माधव लाल साव

8. जीवलाल महतो

9. हरी राम महतो

10. बाबुलाल मांझी

11 . धर्मनाथ मांझी

12. शिव नारायण मांझी

13. बासुदेव घांसी

5. The management had examined two witnesses , out ofwhich MW - 1 is Halan Surin who has joined in Kathara Area on 30-8-2004 and he has no duty to supervise the work of the concerned workmen . He has come to say that they do not engage contractor for maintenance of railway track, but they do engage contractor for replacement of railway track and sleepers etc. on some occasion . He has further come to say that they have got their own departmental workers for repairing of the railway track but they have not filed any attendance register or paper to show that they have got permanent work force for maintenance of railway track. On the other hand , from the copyofattendance register filed by the concerned workmen which also contains the signature of P.W.1 . of the management , goes to show that the concerned persons are working round the year in the maintenance of railway track . The another witness is Uma Shankar Prasad Singh who has come to say that they have got a gang workers for dayto day maintenance and repair of railway track , but the management has not filed any paper to support this fact . He has filed paper relating the contractor for major repair and maintenance work for the years 1991 to 1995. Besides that he has proved the demand notice of the sponsoring union , rejoinder of the management before the Conciliation 7753 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

-Vs-

14. बन्धन घांसी

Shri Krishna Babu Sinha and others

15. किशुन यादव

APPEARENCE

16. राम विसुनदास

Shri B. C. Pathak, Advocate : For the Management 17. प्रमोद कुमार

Dr. M. Pathak , Advocate

Forthe Workman . Shri S. Dutta , Advocate :

18. नकुल महतो

Date ofAward : 2-5-2006

19. राम सेवक सिंह

AWARD

20. रमेश रविदास

21. जोगेश महतो

22. किशुन प्र. यादव

23. रामगोविन्द सिंह

TheGovt . ofIndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by a notification No. L- 17011/ 1/2002 (IR-B - II) dtd. 29-5-2002 referred an Industrial Dispute between the Management of Life Insurance Corpn. of India and their workmen Shri Krishna Babu Sinha and others on the following issue :

24. राम किशोर बर्नवाल

25. मौहम्मद झलिसाग्दि

नई दिल्ली , 8 अगस्त 2006

"Whether the demand of the Silchar Division Insurance Workers Organisation (BMS ) , Silchar for regularisation of services of S/Shri Krishna Banu Sinha, Tarun Kumar Sinha and Bidyut Kanti Nath by the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Silchar is fair ,just and legal? Ifyes, what relief the workmen concerned entitled to?"

का.आ. 3583.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एल. आई. सी. ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण गोहाटी के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 11 (C)/2002 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17011/1 /2002 आई आर ( बी. II ) ] सौ गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

On receipt of reference , a reference case was registered and notices were issued both parties calling upon them to file their written statements/addl . written statements and documents, if any. In response to the notices both parties appeared in this Tribunal and filed their written statement. Both parties also adduced evidences both oral anddocumentary in support of their respective cases.

New Delhi, the 8th August, 2006

The case of the workmen in brief is that:

That, Divisional Manager of the L.I.C.I. Silchar Division employed S/ Shri Krishna Babu Sinha, Tarun Kr. Sinhawith effect from 1-7-2000 and Shri Bidyut Kanti Nath with effect from 2-3-2001 and aforesaid workmen since their joining have been performing the duties of watchman in Divisional office itselfsituated at Meherpur , Silchar- 15.

S.O. 3583.-In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Ref. No. 11 (C)/ 2002] of the Industrial Tribunal Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of LiC ofIndia, and their workman, received bythe Central Government on 3-8-2006.

[No. L-17011 /1/2002- IR(B- II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

That, Divisional Manager , Silchar Division taking advantage of poverty and unemployment exploited the workmenbytreating them as "Contractual Security Guard " with an intention not to regularise their service thereby to deny their rights and privileges such as Medical benefit, P.F. , gratuityetc.

ANNEXURE IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , GUWAHATI, ASSAM

REFERENCE NO . 11 (C) OF 2002

PRESENT

Shri B. Bora, PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute beteween

The Management of

That , the workers all along disputed their nometiclature "Contractual Security Guard" which was purely malafide and a hoax. There was no shadow of a contractor in the realm of their service . They were directly employedby the Corporation and their work was distributed and supervisedby the officers ofthe Corporation . Therefore, in the interest of justice, the organisation of the workman filed a dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner , Guwahati on 7-6-2001 , and accordingly conciliation was fixedby RLC at Guwahati on 6-8-2001 . However, Divisional Manager, Silchar Division on receipt ofthe aforesaid letter Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Officer, Silchar

2538 GI/06-32 7754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] of conciliation immediately terminated the service of the Shri Bidyut Kanti Nath with effect from 4-8-2001 so as to defeat his claim for regularisation as because Shri Bidyut Kanti Nath could not complete six months of service by that time although the other two workmen had already completed six months of service by that time and in place ofaforesaid Bidyut Kanti Nath employed one Shri Samarjit Sinha who has been working as on date. It is submitted thatin order to claim regularisation of one's service in any subordinate post of the Corporation , six months continuous service is essential as per LICI ( Staff) Regulation , 1960 and Rules framed thereunder .

personnel due to the prevailing situations and crimes in the form of insurgency burglary , dacoity , theft , extortion , killing etc. As a result , the management, as a matter of policy, decided to find out the ways and means to tide over the situation temporarily by engaging such persons through some agency or contractor on contractual basis . The management could come to know that under such similar situations some Central Govt . departments , namely the Deptt . of Telecommunications , ONGC were already engaging such security guards and other personnel as security guards in their departments . The said departments have borrowed such services from the Cacher Ex- serviceman Association , a registered organisation established for such purpose . These type of personnel are lent by the said association in such department on the terms and conditions regulated by a contract for such services . The management had an initial verbal discussion and wanted to know about the terms and conditions of contract for services and also the proof of deployment of such personnel in other Central Govt . departments ifthere was any. In response to the said verbal query, the Cachar Ex-serviceman Association wrote to the management vide their letter No. CESA. 047151 dt. 12-6-2000 and submitted their offer stating therein the terms and conditions of the deployment of such security guards to the management .

It is further submitted that prior to employment of the workman under reference there were two confirmed watchman amongst others in the same Divisional Officer i.e. Shri Bahauddin Choudhury, Shri S. N. Pathak, but both of them dies on 9-3-98 and 21-4-2000 respectively and following their death posts of confirmed watchman fell vacant and in order to cover up this shortage of watchman , Divisional Manager recruited those thr "kmen and engaged them for performing the job . 1. In the ..na Babu light of above it would be evident that : Sinha and Shri Tarun Kumar Sinha have already completed two years of service with the Corporation while Shri Bidyut Kanti Nath could not complete six months of service as he had been terminated by the management to defeat his claim ofregularisation by causing a breach of continuity of service thereby causing a wrongful loss to the employees and a wrongful gain to the management . Therefore , all the shall be regularised as per LICI ( Staff) Regulation , 1960 and Rules framed thereunder .

The workmen have prayed for an award in their favour.

On receipt of the said letter dt. 12-6-2000 , the management accepted the said offer of the said Cacher Ex- servicemen Association communicated by the letter dt. 12-6-2000 and accordingly requested the said Cacher Ex- servicemen Association to deploy 3 security guards without arms to be placed for security in the Divisional office building at Silchar . This was communicated to the said association vide letter No. DMS/ 196 dt . 26-6-2000 addressed to the General Secretary of the said association.

The management contested by filing written statement and stated :-

Asper requirement of the management which was communicated vide letter dt. 26-6-2000 , the said association deployed 3 security guards in the said premise of the management with effect from 1-7-2000 . The names andBio- data duly certified by the General Secretary of the said association were communicated to the management vide association's letter No. CESA : 047173 dt. 26-6-2000 . The names of the security guards so deployed are as follows :

1. Ex . No. 14525216 NK . Tarun Kumar Sinha

2. Ex . No. 14549862 ΝΚ. Krishna Babu Sinha That the reference is liable to be dismissed for want ofjurisdiction as the so - called workmen are not the workmen ofthe management and for the same reasons such outsiders cannot be the members of the trade union , namely, the Silchar Insurance Workers ' Organisation , C/ o Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh . Moreover , the said trade union has no right to espouse any cause or claim of the said workmen under any provisions of law . The subject matter in the " schedule" of the reference also is not covered by the Third Schedule ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

3. Ex No. 7771314Y NK . Bimal Kumar Sinha That the management under a very peculiar and unwarranted situation had the requirements of some manpower for security reasons to engage as security guards for the Divisional Office , Silchar ofthe management . There being an order of ban imposed by the competent authority restricting the recruitment of any kind of class III and IV posts , the management was not in a position to go for direct and regular recruitment of any such security guards/watchman although there was a need such

Accordingly, the said association continued to deploy the security guards to the management and the management also in performance of contract and considering the services rendered by the said association by deploying security guards , made the payment of Bills raised by the said association in terms of the contract falling due every month with effect from the month of July 2000 to February 2002. The total amount is being drawn and paid through a singly cheque in every month in favour 7755 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

of the General Secretary of the said association . The secretary of the said association after encashing the cheque makes the payment on behalf of the association to the respective security guards deployed with the management . The management entered into the contract with the said association for a " contract for services " of security guards and such contract was not a " contract of service" relating to the said security guards. The contract between the said association and the management is a valid and legal one and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said agreement .

2(1 ) and 2 (2) are some of the proof of such payments by a single cheque Ext. 5 is a letter of deployment of security guard Sri B. K. Nath . Ext. 6 is the letter of deployment of S. J. Sinha. On 1-9-2004 the Agency informed the LICI that it was going to witndraw B. K. Sinha and T. K. Sinha but theAgency did not withdraw them. Then on 3-9-2004 the Agency informed the LICI that it would withdraw all the security guards , and accordingly did so . The agreement between the LICI and the Agency was terminated. This witness stated that the security guards were the employees ofthe Cacher Ex - servicemen Association. They were never the employees of the LICI . The Agency made a clarification to the LICI : that the security guards were the members of the Cacher Ex- servicemen Association . Ext. 7 is the said letter . The Agency also informed that LICI that the security guards in question cannot be the member of any Trade Union so long they are members of the Agency . Ext . 8 is thepetition filed before the RLC by the General Secy. of the SDIWO (BMS) Silchar . Ext . 9 is the notice to the LICI . Ext. 10 is the written statement of the LICI. This witness deposed that the workmen were never the member of the BMS and therefore the BMS cannot espouse this case .

WW No. 1 Sri Tarun Kumar Sinha who is a workman ofthis reference deposed that he joined on 1-7-2000 as a watchmen at the Divisional office of LICI Silchar . He deposed that he was verbally appointed by the Divisional Manager. The post was a regular post . This witness stated that his salary Rs . 3050/- was paid by the Ex- servicemen Association. According to him his salary was Rs . 4208/- and when he raised objection in this regard the Divisional Manager threatened to discharge him. He then lodged his complaint with Silchar Divisional Insurance Workers ' Union who took up the matter with the LICI.

That the management only borrowed the services of security guards from the said association against consideration on contract and the management had nothing to do with as to who , how and when would be engaged as security guards by the said association with the management . The control , management, deploymert , withdrawal from deployment , matter of discipline , etc. were all managed by the said association . As the said association was the authority to regulate all such affairs , the management , therefore , was never an employer of the said security guards within the meaning of any provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said association deployed initially 3 security guards , namely, Tarun Kumar Sinha, Krishna Babu Sinha and Bimal Kumar Sinha . But subsequently, one Bidyut Kanti Nath was deployed in place ofBimal Kumar Sinha, who was not willing to continue in such security duty. This was done and communicated by the said association to the management vide their letter CESA . 047028/ dt . 1-3-2001 . The said association also deployed another security guard namely, Samerjit Sinha in place of Bidyut Kanti Nath, who was withdrawn by the sajd association on disciplinary gounds .

The management has prayed for an award in it favour.

Let me now examine as to whether the Silchar Division Insurance Workers ' Organisation ( BMS) has the authority to espouse the case of the workmen in this reference . MW 1 , Shri Alok Chakravarty, A.O. LICI Silchar Division office stated in his evidence that after construction of New Divisional office at Meherpur , the Divisional Manager decided to engage some security guards in the office and in this connection contacted the Cachar Ex - servicemen Association for deployment of some (3 Nos .) of security guards. The said agency submitted a written proposal on 12-6-2000 laying down certain terms and conditions for deployment of security guards . Ext . 3 is the said proposal . The LICI accepted the said terms and conditions and informed the agency about acceptance by a letter dt . 26-6-2000. Ext . 4 is the said letter . The agency also agreed to deploy the security guards and deployed three security guards w.e.f. 1-7-2000 . This was communicated vide Ext . 1 . The payments of the Security guards were made as per the billsprepared by the Cachar Ex - servicemen Association . Ext . 2 are some of such bills prepared by the Agency . Exts .

Thiswitness admitted in his cross -examination that he was not given any appointment letter on 1-7-2000. But he stated that he was given an appointment letter after one month thereof. But the said appointment letter is not available with him . He stated that the appointment letter of given to the President of SDIWO (BMS ) Silchar. Further he admitted in his cross -examination that before joining in the LICI he served the Indian Army for 18 years . This witness further admitted in his cross -examination that he cannot say under what circumstances his salary was paid by the Cacher. Ex - servicemen Association. He further admitted thatvide Ext. 1 his signature and Biodatas were forwarded after attestationto the LICI . Ext . 1 ( 1 ) is the signature ofthe Secy. of the Cacher Ex- servicemen Association . Ext. 1 (2) are his Bio-datas . Ext. 1 (3 ) is his signature. Ext. 1 (2) mentions about his deployment as security guards Ext . 2 is a bill of salary of the security guards submitted by the Cachar Ex- servicemenAssociation. Ext . 2 is a payment voucher . Ext. 2(2) is the forwarding letter . This witness admitted that salary bills of the security guards are being prepared by the Ex- servicemen Association . This witness stated that the security guards are the members of the SDIWO w.e.f. 15-10-2000 and they pay membership fee .

7756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

workmen were directly paid by the management. They weresimply contractual workers .

The Trade Union which has represented this case has no right to espouse this dispute and the Trade Union has raised a dispute which is not tenable in law .

I have considered the materials on the record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the management and I am constrained to hold that the demand ofthe Silchar Division Insurance Workers ' Organisation ( BMS) is not atall fair, just and legal . This reference , therefore , fails .

The reference is answered accordingly .

Now from the evidence discussed above it can be seenthat the workmen in question were not the employees of the LICI . They were the members of the Cachar Ex- servicemen Association and they were deployed by the Association at the Divisional office of the LICI on contractual basis . The documents proved by the MW1 in support of the case of the LICI are sufficient to prove this fact. Since, the workmen were never the employees of the LICI , they cannot be the members of the Silchar Divisional Insurance Workers Organisation (SDIWO) . Their claim as member ofthis Organisation is a fake claim which remained to be substantiated. This being the position , the SDIWO has no right to espouse the case of the workmen.

Givenunder my hand and seal on his the 2nd day of June, 2006.

B. BORA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 9 अगस्त 2006

Being so situated , let me examine as to whether the case ofthe workmen comes under the preview of the Section 2-A ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 or not . If the case of the workmen does not come under the perview of the Section 2- A of the I.D. Act, the reference in hand shall not be maintainable . Section 2-A of the Act envisages that the individual cases ofthe workmen can be treated as Industrial Dispute only if such disputes relates to discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or termination of the workmen . If the case of an individual workman does not come within the four corners of these provisions , in that event the dispute cannot be treated as an Industrial Dispute and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction insuch matter .

का.आ. 3584.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12011 / 104/ 1999- आई आर ( बी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव Moreover, the Third Schedule of the I.D. Act does not cover the case of the workmen and therefore this Tribunal cannot adjudicate upon the dispute in question .

New Delhi , the 9th August, 2006

S.O. 3584. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 8-8-2006.

[No. L- 12011 / 104/ 1999- IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

Be that as it may, let me clarify something relevant to the case in hand and similar cases . To claim regularisation in an establishment by some casual or temporary workmen , the workmen must prove a jural relationship between the workmen and the establishment . Here in the case in hand , the workmen were deployed by the Cacher Ex- servicemen Association on contract basis for certain period . The workmen were paid by the Association who used to prepare bills and accepted the payments by cross - cheques . This fact is proved beyond any doubt by the Management . The workmen failed to prove that there was anyjural relationship between the workmen and the Management of the LICI .

ANNEXURE

I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Management. The learned counsel for the workmen remained absent on several dates . So he could not be heard.

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , NEW DELHI

I.D. NO . 2/2000

In the matter of dispute between:

The learned counsel for the Management mainly argued on the line that this reference is not at all maintainable as the workmen are not the members of the Silchar Divisional Insurance Workers Organisation and the said organisation has no right to espouse this case .

The other main point of argument was that there is no jural relationship between the workmen and the Management of the LICI .

Shri Nanu Ram , Through Punjab National Bank Employees Union , State Vice President, PNBEU ( UO) , Param Dham Vishnu Dham Colony, NewMadavNagar , Saharanpur (UP)

...Workman The learned counsel further argued that the workmen were never directly employed by the LICI . Neither the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Versus

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank,

RegionalOffice,

Church Compound ,

Bhajoria Road, Saharanpur

7757

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

...Management

(U.P.)247001 .

APPEARANCES

None for the workman .

Shri Jasmer Singh Manager H.R.D. P.N.B. , Regional Office , Saharanpur along with Shri R.K.Singhal , Officer H.R.D.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L- 12011 / 104/99/I.R. (B - II ) dated 23-12-1999 has referred the following industrial dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Regional Office , Saharanpur in denying the one priority mark to the workman on acquiring the intermediate qualification in Commerce isjust fair and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?"

2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman Shri Nanu Ram is a permanent employee of the bank, is working as clerk- cum- cashier I /C at branch office R.P.S. Depot Saharanpur. He appeared in Inter Commerce examination of U.P. Board in 1982 after getting prior permission from the Bank. The U.P. Board declared as passed in its result and issued a mark sheet No. D56088 to Shri Nanu Ram and also issued a certificate No. 143879 in which it is clearly certified that he has passed the said examination. The workman Nanu Ram requested the Regional Manager to sanction him one priority mark of InterCommerce for which he is entitled as per settlement 2/73 , dated 16-6-1973 arrived at between the workman Union and the management of the bank and the management of Bank has denied to sanction on priority Mark to Shri Nanu Ram. The management of the bank has no right to supersede the decision of the U.P. Board, who issued the certificate and mark - sheet as passed in result of Inter Commerce. The action of the management is also against clause ' 3 ' of settlement 2/73 dated 16-6-73 . It is therefore prayed to hold the action ofmanagement of PNB as illegal and unjustified and in consequence thereof to grant the following reliefs .

(A) Allow the workman one priority marks of Inter Commerce qualification from January, 1983.

(B) Any other relief/reliefs that this Tribunal may deem fit, proper and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the instant dispute.

3. Management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the dispute has not been duly and validly espoused by the said Union and has not filed any document to indicate that the office-bearer ofthe said union is authorized to raise the alleged dispute . As such the dispute cannot be termed as industrial dispute in terms ofSection 2(k) of the I.D. Act, 1947. It is also submitted that the president of the Union is not authorized to raise the dispute before the authorities under the provisions of the I.D. Act in terms of the constitution of the said union and for this reason also the dispute is not maintainable . It is alleged that a candidate fulfilling the following three conditions becomes eligible for one priority mark admissible for commerce qualifications :-

(a) who has passed all the papers of commerce.

(b) Who is entitled to certificate for Inter Commerce .

(c) Who is also eligible to seek admission to B.Com. 4. It is alleged that the workman failed in the paper of Banking and passed only two papers of commerce out of three so he is not eligible for grant of one priority mark in terms of the bank's rules referred to above at para 2 .

5. On merits it is not admitted that Nanu Ram was declared pass in ali subjects . It is submitted that request of the workman has been considered by the competent authority and it was found that he is not eligible for grant ofone prioritymark as he failed in the paper of banking and passed only two papers out of three papers of commerce . It is, therefore prayed that the dispute may be answered accordingly.

6. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the facts contained in the claim statement were reiterated to be correct and controverted facts of the written statement were refuted .

7. Thereafter the workman filed his affidavit in evidence and was cross -examined on 12-7-2005 and workman evidence was closed and case was adjourned to 17-10-2005 for management evidence . Perusal of the record shows that the workman last appeared in this case on 12-7-2005 and thereafter on the subsequent hearings on 17-10-2005, 8-12-2005 , 13-2-2006 , 8-5-2006 and today on 1-8-2006 none appeared for the workman . Management filed affidavit ofmanagement witness on 13-2-2006 and for cross of management witness case was adjourned to 8-5-2006. On 8-5-2006 none appeared for the workman and case was adjourned to 1-8-2006 i.e. today. Today also none is present for the workman . 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.

S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3585.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , हिसार के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट, औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार 7758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 874/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/100/95 - आई आर ( डी यू) ]

oftheir witnesses , namely N.C Kocchar , P.L. Bansal and Bhupinder Kaur . However, they examined only P.L. Bansal , in support of their claim. The workman came in the witness box and proved his affidavit on 9th Jan. , 2004 . He also faced the questions of the Management in cross- examination.

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th August, 2006

S.O. 3585.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 874/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Hissar and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006 .

[No. L-42012/ 100/95 - IR ( DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR, COURT -IL, CHANDIGARH

SHRI KULDIP SINGH : Presiding Officer

Case No. 1.D. No. 874/2005

Registered on 21-10-2005

The claim of the workman is that he was appointed as Peon on 9th Sep. , 1991 , on daily wages but was paid wages on monthly basis ; that he served the Management upto 21st Sep. , 1992 although the Management did not allowhimtomark the presence after 17th Sep. , 1992. Since after that day the Management also did not allow him to enter the premises of the Management and his identity card was also taken back by the CMP ( Camp Military Police) ; that during the period he served the Management, his performance was to the satisfaction of the Management . However, the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet, inquiry and thus his termination from service was in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act; that since the day of his termination , despite his best efforts ,he has not been able to get work and is unemployed till date fully depending upon his parents . The workman has prayed for setting aside the order of termination ofhis services, reinstatement on the job he was working, with continuity of service and back wages . He has also prayed for any other relief which this Tribunal finds proper .

Date of Decision 6-12-2005

Shri Vijinder Singh S / o Shamlal

R/oVillage and Post Satrod Kala , Distt. Hissar- 125001

..Petitioner

Versus

Principal Kendriya Vidyalay, HissarCantt. 125001

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Mr. I. S. Sidhu,

Advocate.

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by taking preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Claim Petition . It is stated by them that the petition is not maintainable since it has been filed against the law and facts . The workman has no locus standi nor he has any cause of action to maintain this petition , which is also against the principles of natural justice as the workman has concealed the true facts froin the Court . The petition is also bad having been based on wrong facts with malafide and for the reason that neither the petitioner is a workman nor the Management is an industry . There is also no relationship of employee and employer between the parties; and that the workman was engaged on dailywages on need basis .

For the Management :

Mr. J. S. Rana, Advocate.

AWARD

The following reference was made by the Govt . of India for the adjudication of this Tribunal vide their reference No. L-42012/ 100/95 dated 30th May, 1996:

"Whether the action of the Management ofKendriya VidyalayHissar Cantt . in terminating the services of Shri Vijinder Singh is just, fair and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

In reply to the claim of the workman made in the Claim Petition, it is statedby the Management that the facts given by the workman, in paras 1 to 6, are false; hence denied. Their part of story is that the workman was engaged on daily wages as per the need of the work and before recruiting him neither any interview was held nor there was anyproper selection . There was also no regular job against which he couldbe appointed. Admitting that the workman had served the Management upto 17th Sep. , 1992 they have stated that since there was no exigency of work , therefore, the workman was not engaged w.e.f. 18th Sep., 1992. There was no question of terminating his services . Contesting that the work of the workman was satisfactory it is stated by them that the Management did not violate the provisions of law and the principles of natural justice .

The notice of the reference was given to the parties . The parties appeared through their Counsel. The workman filed the Claim Petition to which the Management filed the Written Statement . In support of his claim the workman filed his affidavit and the Management filed the affidavits

" [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Since there was no appointment nor any termination , therefore , there was no necessity to charge sheet the workman or hold an inquiry against him. They have prayed fordismissing the claim of the workman with costs.

From the pleadings ofthe parties it is proved that the workman had served the Management from 9th Sep. , 1991 till 17th Sep. , 1992. Thus he served the Management continuously for one year and 8 days plus and this further proves that on the day of disengagement of the workman , on 17th Sep. , 1992 , he had put in more than 240 days continuous service preceding the date of termination of his services. Management examined Shri P.L Bansal , the principal of the Management Vidyalay, as witness in the case. Sh. Bansal, in his affidavit, which he proved as correct and which has been exhibited as M- 1 , he stated that the engagement of the workman was irregular since neither any applications were called from General Public nor through employment exchange . Reiterating the facts stated in the Written Statement , he further stated that since the workman was engaged on daily wages , therefore , he did not fall in the category of workman . It is further stated by him that the employment of the workman was not done after an open competition , therefore , he is not entitled to any relief of reinstatement . When cross -examined further he denied that his affidavit is beyond the pleadings . He admitted that his affidavit was prepared on his instructions.

We find that the defence of the Management is to the claim of the workman is purely on the basis of pay that neither the petitioner is a workman nor the Management is an industry, therefore , the claim of the workman is not maintainable; the workman was engaged on day to day need basis and was not recruited after open competition having been recommended by the employment exchange . Hisappointment was thus irregular and he had no right to claim reinstatement ; see that there was no order of appointment of the workman nor any termination order, was given to him, therefore , there was no question of giving him any charge sheet or holding any inquiry against him. The position is very clear that the workman was not given any notice, before the termination of his services . He was also not paid termination compensation nor a notice was given to the appropriate govt . about the proposed termination ofthe workman . The Management , therefore , clearly violated the provisions of Sec . 25F ofthe Industriai Disputes Act , 1947, hereinafter to be referred as " Act ", as it is admitted by the Management that the workman had served them continuously from 9-9-1991 to 17th Sep. , 1992, that is, for more than 240 days continuously preceding the date ofhis disengagement from service.

The Management has not shown as to how the petitioner is not a workman and how they are not an Industry. The law is now settled that in order to be a workman a person need not to be employed in a substantial capacity or on a temporary basis , in the first instance . In other words ,

7759

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

every person employed in an industry, irrespective of his status, be it temporary, permanent or on a probationer , would be a workman as has been held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Hutchiath V/s . Karnataka State Corporation( 19931 LLJ 30) . The Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat and Rajasthan in the cases of [ 1984 (2 ) LLJ 75 ] and [ 1989 (2 ) LLJ 289] have defined as to what workman is . Sec.2 (S) ofthe Act clearly defines that a person employed inan industry todo any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical , operational, clerical or supervisory work for higher or reward whether the terms of employment is express or implied and for the purpose of any proceeding under the Act, in relation to an Industrial Dispute, includes any person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of that dispute , or whose dismissal, discharge , retrenchment has led to the dispute .

The Management has claimed that they are not an industry. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined the word " industry" in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajapaa, reported as 1978 LAB IC 778. They have held that where there is a systematic activity, organized by co - operation between the employer and employee, for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes , prima facia there is an industry. Their lordships have further held that ifthe three test listed above are fulfilled even in the case of professions , clubs , education institution , cooperative and research institutes , charitable project and other kindred adventures , they fall in the category of industry. In the present case the Management has not shown as to how they are not an industry . It should not be presumed, but their case , at the best, can be that they being an educational institution did not fall in the category industry.

In view of the discussion made above their plea in this regard does not hold good and is rejected. In view of the discussion made above I am of the opinion that the action of the Management of Kendriya Vidaylay, Hissar Cantt. in terminating the services of Shri Vijinder Singh was not just, fair and legal . Therefore , the termination of workman is set aside . He is treated to be in service as if there was no order of his termination passed by the Management . He is entitled to ail service benefits including backwages . But keeping in view the fact that the workman must have earned at least to feed his family he will be entitled to 50% of the wages . The Management is directed to take him back in service immediately and pay him back wages within three months from today failing which the workman shall also be entitled for interest on the amount due at the rate of 9% p.a. The award is passed against the Management . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer 7760

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2006

workman also and in those cases it was reported that Shri Prabhakar has died . Shri Dhani Ram who later on appeared as representative of the workman also expired. Onrecord there is no other address on which the workman could be served . As per the record of this file the workman himselfnever appeared in this case in person accept when the case was to be listed for consideration in the Lok Adalat . It isin these circumstances that the case is being considered in the absence of the workman .

का.आ. 3586.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फॉर्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1158/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार ' को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-14012/14/2000 आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3586. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1158/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8- 2006.

[No. L- 14012/ 14/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

The Govt . of India desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the Officer Incharge , Military Farm, Ambala Cantt . in terminating the services of Shri Swaran Singh w.e.f. 16th Oct. , 1997 was just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman was entitled to . Supplementing the reference the workman claimed that he was employed as daily wager by the Management on 10th Dec. , 1993 and he served them up to 15th Oct. , 1997 continuously; that the Management abruptly terminated his services on 16th Oct. , 1997 without assigning any reason and without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. He was neither given any notice nor compensation before terminating his services . The Management retained his juniors in service and also made fresh recruitments after his disengagement . He prayed for declaring termination of his services bad in law and for a relief of reinstatement alongwith benefits of continuity of service and back wages . He filed his affidavit in support of hisclaim.

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH

SHRI KULDIP SINGH : Presiding Officer

CASE No. I.D. No. 1158/2005

Registered on 26-9-2005

Date of Decision 2-8-2006 .

Shri Swaran Singh S /o Shri Mehar Singh C/ o Shri B. R. Parbhakar , 63 - C, Kailash Nagar , Model Town , Ambala (Haryana)

Petitioner

Versus

The Management opposed the claim ofthe workman stating that the workman had left the job at his own in 1997 and was not retrenched by them and since the workman had left the job himself, therefore , there was no question of paying him the compensation . It is further their claim that the workman has come to the Tribunal after 3 years . Therefore, his petition is not maintainable . Denying the claim made in the petition it is stated by them that since the workman had himself left the job , therefore , he has no ground to maintain the present petition . Thus the Management has categorically denied the claim made by theworkman.

Office Incharge, Military Farm, Ambala Cantt . (Haryana)-133001

Respondent

APPEARANCE

None

For the Workman

K.K. Thakur , Advocate.

For the Management

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent. It has been taken note of in the order dated 8th Dec. , 2005 , that the workman was issued notices more than once and the same were received back with the report that the workman could not be served . This fact was also taken note of that the workman was issued notices through his representative Shri B. R. Prabhakar , on his address in Model Town , Ambala . Shri Prabhakar was appearing as representative of other

Thus I find that except the pleadings of the parties , there is no evidence to support the claim of the workman except his own affidavit which cannot be considered for the reason that the facts therein have been denied by the Management. Secondly the workman has not come in the witness box to face the cross examination by the Management so as to add weightage to it . Rather I find that the workman has failed to produce any evidence to show that his services were terminated by the Management on 16th Oct. , 1997 , in violation of provisions of Industrial Dispute Act and the principies of natural justice . Since there is no evidence in support of the ciaim ofthe workman , therefore, I do not find any reason to hold that the services, of the workman were terminated by the Management on 16th Oct. , 1997; and that the said action of the Management [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

was unjust and legal . The award is passed against the workman holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for necessary action and file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्त2006

का.आ. 3587.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गोल्डन लॉयन कैण्टीन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध. में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -14012/36/2004- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी..

New Delhi , the 10th August, 2006

S.O. 3587.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 53/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Golden Lion Canteen and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006.

[No. L- 14012/36/2004 -IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIKULDIP SINGH CASE No.I. D.No. 53/2004

Registered on : 30-11-2004 Date ofDecision : 28-07-2006

Uttam Kumar Biswas , H. No. 2, Lucky Complex , Anand Nagar, ' B ' P. O. Boh , Ambala Cantt .

.....Petitioner

Versus

The Manager, Golden Lion Canteen , 6, K.E. Lines , Ambala Cantt .

7761

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

AWARD

Vide their notification No.L - 14012/36/2004- 1R(DU)dated 8th November, 2004 , the Govt. ofIndia referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of Golden Lion Canteen, Ambala Cantt . in terminating the services of Shri Uttam Kumar Biswas , Ex-Salesman , w.e.f. 28-2-2003 even without providing the ample opportunity to defend his case and inflicting disproportionate punishment of removal from service on him is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

The notice of the reference was given to the parties and the workman appeared through representative whereas the Management appeared through Counsel as well as representative . The workman filed the claim petition to which the Management filed the reply. The workman supported his claim petition with his affidavit. He also filed the rejoinder tothe Written Statement of the Management . TheManagement filed the affidavit of their witness . They also produced photocopies of the inquiry report and other documents related to the inquiry . Both the workman as well as the witness of the Management also came in the witness box and they were cross - examined by the opposite side . The representatives ofthe parties argued in the matter .

I have gone through the file and have also considered the submissions made by the parties . The claim of the workman is that he was employed by the Management as Salesman on 8th November , 2000 and his services were terminated on 27th February , 2003 , on the ground that the workman , in his capacity, as Group Incharge liquor stores , was found having allowed the sale of 12 bottles ofwhisky, Royal Challenge , to unauthorized person and thereby was guilty of misconduct . Giving the detail of the order of his termination and the provisions related to the sales of goods etc. the workman further stated that his termination was bad in law, unjust and improper, as the Management failed to observe the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and other laws . They also did not follow the principles of natural justice . The workman has prayed for declaring the termination of his services as illegal and he may be given the relief of reinstatement in service with full backwages and all other benefits of service as if there were no orders of his termination .

....... Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman :

Balbir Singh Saini ,

AR.

For the Management :

C. M. Sharma, Advocate 2538G1/06-33

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman on a number of grounds . It is their preliminary objection that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to answer the reference as neither the petitioner is a workman nor the Management is an industry , therefore , the Management is not a subject of Industrial Disputes Act . That the workman has not arrayed the necessary parties to the dispute , therefore, the petition is not maintainable ; that since the workman himselfconfessed, in writing, on 17th December , 2002 his guilt, therefore , he cannot now challenge it; that 7762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

services were terminated .

theworkman has concealed material facts and also there is no cause ofaction with him to maintain this petition ; hence the petition is not maintainable.

Onmerits it is the claim of the Management that the services ofthe workman were terminated after conducting a disciplinary inquiry against him and the final order of termination was passed by the Managing Director; that duringthe inquiry the workman was provided with list of witnesses and documents . He was informed of the appointment of inquiry officer and was also provided with assistance to defend himself; that after holding the inquiry, inaccordance with rules and procedures, the InquiryOfficer submitted the report where upon the punishing authority issued a notice to the workman and also provided a copy ofthe Inquiry Report to him and gave him the chance to explain his position . The workman was also given personal hearingby the punishing authority. The workman confessed his guilt before the punishing authority. After taking into consideration the inquiry report, the confessional statement ofthe workman, the punishing authority passed the order ofhis termination from his service . Defending the order of termination the Management has stated that the order is legal , just and proper and is based upon the confessional statement of the workman ; that since the workman had allowed the sale of liquor to unauthorized person, therefore, the Management lost faith in him and he was discharged from service ; that though the workman had confessed his guilt therefore , there was no necessity ofholding a domestic inquiry still the Management following the principles of natural justice , held a detailed inquiry in the matter and provided full opportunity to the workman to defend himself. The charges against the workman were fully proved in the domestic inquiry and thereafter, the order of his termination waspassed by the competent authority. For these reasons the workman is not entitled to any relief.

As per the case of the Management , the workman was charged with the serious lapse in the terms that he being group incharge liquor store allowed unauthorized sale of 12 bottles of whisky Royal Challenge at the rate of 200 per bottle against the CSD rate of 184 , through NK Niranjan Singh , Care -taker , to a civilian named Pardeep Bhardwaj , who was not authorized to purchase the CSD stores . It is further their case that during the inquiry conductedby Lt. Col. B. K. Mathur, the workman was found guilty of the charges levelled against him . Therefore, he was issued a notice to show cause as to why the punishment proposed be not awarded to him . The workman was provided with a copy of the inquiry report . He was also given opportunity of personal interviewby the punishing authority, where the workman pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon , the Management passed speaking order terminating the services ofthe workman . The workman was given full opportunity to defend himself and he did not raise any finger against the evidence rather he himself admitted the charge . It was in those circumstances that his

I have gone through the inquiry report and evidence available on record . In my opinion the claim of the Management is not supported by their own evidence. The Management has placed on record document exhibit M-7 which is the charge framed against the workman . It reads that on 16th Nov. , 2002 it was reported that 12 bottles of whisky Royal Challenge were sold by N.K. Niranjan Singh atthe rate ofRs . 200 per bottle to a civilian named Pradeep Bhardwaj and the workman being incharge of Liquor Group store should explain the sale of liquor to unauthorized personandwithout making any bill for it . The charge-sheet isdated 27th Nov. , 2002. There is another document titled as statement of charges against the workman dated 10th Dec. , 2002 which also reads in the same language . Thus , the charge against the workman was that he being Group Incharge Liquor Store , allowed the sale of 12 bottles ofwhisky Royal Challenge at the rate of Rs.200 per bottle against the CSD rate of Rs . 184 per bottle through N.K. Niranjan Singh Care- taker , to a civilian , Pradeep Bhardwaj who was not authorized to purchase the CSD stores. In support of the statement of charges , the Management informed the workman that they will produce Hawaldar Dilip Chetri , Pradeep Bhardwaj and Capt . Bachan Ram as witnesses and the documents to be produced against him willbe CMP report and liquor bills . Turning to the report of the CMP dated 16th Nov. , 2002 , we find that as per this report, on 15th Nov. , 2002 at about 11.02 in the morning , Dilip Chetri found one Pradeep Bhardwaj carrying a case containing 12 bottles of whisky Royal Challenge and on inquiry it was found that N. K. Niranjan Singh , Care -taker whowas posted in the Liquor Group Store of Golden Lion Canteen, Ambala , had sold whisky to said Pradeep Bhardwaj , without issuing any bill and charged Rs.200 per bottle as the cost of the liquor . This report no where mentions the name of U.K. Vishwas having been involved in any manner in the sale of the liquor . During the inquiry against the workman the Management examined N.K. Niranjan Singh, Hawldar Dilip Chetri , Capt . Bachan Ram , Pradeep Bhardwaj as witnesses . The statement of the workman U.K. Vishwas was also recorded. Hawaldar Dilip Chetri gave the account of sequences in which he had caught Pradeep Bhardwaj carrying the case containing 12 bottles of whisky Royal Challenge and on his inquiry he was told that the liquor has been purchased at the rate of Rs. 200 per bottle. According to him Pradeep could not name the person who sold the liquor to him but stated that he can recognize the person ; that he reported the matter to the Canteen Manager , on whose inquiry N.K. Niranjan Singh first refused to have sold the liquor but , later on admittedhis fault. He was questioned by the Inquiry Officer , at length like the representative of the Management and not as an Inquiry Officer . The witness was put a direct questionthat how much U.K. Vishwas was involved in the sale of liquor . He was categorical that U.K Vishwas was not [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

7763 involved . The Inquiry Officer repeated the question and allowed the witness to answer after going through the statements he had recorded on 15th Nov. , 2002. Hawaldar Chetri answered that it was N.K. Niranjan Singh who had taken quota from Hawaldar Vishwas and without the knowledge of Hawaldar Vishwas , had given the quota to the civilian. Thus , we find that this Hawaldar Chetri did not say even a word against the workman.

liquor store incharge , it was his responsibility about the happenings in the store . If by being incharge of liquor group, Hawaldar Vishwas had so much responsibility , then what was the responsibility of this witness , as Manager of GoldenLion Canteen . Neither this question was put to the witness nor the witness himself stated anything in this regard . It is a fact that in the institutions all the employees are supposed to be responsible for their conduct of the work, they are assigned. A supervisor can be expected to check not more than 10 % of the transactions done by his subordinates . The responsibility of the supervisor comes only when his animous is established in the questionable transaction . No doubt, his failure to locate the mistake does not absolved him of the liability , although the punishment for that cannot be that harsh as of losing the job .

In answer to the questions whether the liquor was given to the civilian with the knowledge of Hawaldar Vishwas , he stated that since Hawaldar Vishwas had told him that N. K. Niranjan Singh had asked for 6 bottles from him, thus, the Hawaldar Vishwas must have the knowledge about the giving away of the liquor . He admitted that no deficiency was found in the stock of the liquor .

The perusal statements of these three witnesses clearly show that none of the witnesses spoke about the involvement of the workman in the alleged sale of the liquor . No doubt, Capt. Bachan Ram , as Manager of the Canteen presumed the involvement of Hawaldar Vishwas in the sale of the liquor to the unauthorized but on a flimsy ground, but that does not directly prove the involvement of the Hawaldar Vishwas in the sale to liquor to unauthorized on the rates more than the rates fixed by the CSD . Therefore , I do not find any evidence on record to connect the workman with the sale of the liquor . This also proves the unfairness of the Enquiry conducted . I have not found any confessional statement of workman on record , which the Management has referred in their pleadings .

Pradeep Bhardwaj was the next witness of the Management who was also examined by the EnquiryOfficer. Mr. Bhardwaj in his statement reported that since there wasmarriage function in his family he went to the Golden Lion Canteen and asked the liquor sales man for whisky RoyalChallenge , who at first refused but later on agreedto give that and he paid Rs . 2400/- to him . While carrying the whisky he was caught by the CMP. He was put a direct question whether it was Hawaldar Vishwas to whom he had asked for liquor . He replied in negative and stated that the person to whom he had asked for liquor was slightly healthier than the Vishwas . On a further question that among N.K. Niranjan Singh and Vishwas , who was the persontowhom he had asked for liquor . He categorically replied that he was not Hawaldar Vishwas . Regarding Niranjan Singh he stated that the liquor was placed on the counter by a Sikh Gentleman. He further stated that the personwho had refused first, then spoke to Niranjan Singh , and that person was sitting behind the counter. He further stated that he had paid Rs . 2400/ - in the denomination of Rs.100/- and 50/- and the delivery of the liquor was given to him by Niranajan Singh , who kept the liquor on the counter. The Inquiry Officer again put the question to the witness whether it was Hawaldar Vishwas who had given the liquor to him . The witness denied . Thus , we find that Pradeep Bhardwaj did not utter a single word against the workman so as to connect him with the sale of liquor. The repetition of questions about the involvement of Viswas by the Enquiry Officer shows that he was not fair and wanted to see that Biswas was involved .

Now coming tothe procedural part of the inquiry I find that the Management has failed to prove that they had The Management examined the third witness Capt. Bachan Ram who , as per his own statement, was not a witness either to the sale of the liquor or its seizure . He came to know about the sale of liquor from the CMP . He admitted that Hawaldar Chetri told him that the liquor was

did not appoint a presenting Officer in the inquiry. They further failed to provide opportunity to the workman to

the inquiry officer put the questions to the witnesses clearly

suggests that he mixed up his position that of Inquiry Officer as well as presenting Officer . This itself shows that

he did not followthe principles of natural justice . An inquiry officer though may not be a judicial officer , he is expected

to act in a judicial manner . His conduct should not only show that he is impartial but his working must exhibit impartially . I find want of this aspect in the inquiry.

given by N.K. Niranjan Singh . This witness further stated that on his asking, Niranjan Singh denied the sale of the liquor by him . When he asked Niranjan Singh in presence ofHawaldar Vishwas and Subedar Balwinder Singh, both Niranjan Singh and Hawaldar Vishwas , blamed each other . However, Niranjan Singh confessed his guilt . According to him Hawaldar Vishwas admitted that Niranjan Singh asked him for his quota of liquor and he had agreed for that he further stated that 2 bills of 6 bottles of whisky were issued at 11.21 hrs . The Inquiry Officer, asked Capt . Bachan Ram, as how much Hawaldar Vishwas was involved in the sale of liquor , he stated that since Hawaldar Vishwas was

followed the procedure required tobe followed in holding the inquiry; and that of principles ofnatural justice . A bare perusal of the inquiry report shows that the Management engage his defence representative . The manner in which proceedings .As stated above the Enquiry Officer put the 7764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] same question to the witness repeatedly as if he wantedto see that the workman is involved in the incident .

is systematic activity , organized by the cooperation between employer and employee , for the production , distribution of goods and services , calculated to satisfy the human wants and wishes , prima -facie , it is an industry. The authority relied upon by the Management reported as 1972 LAB IC 776 was also considered by their lordship in thatjudgment and did not agree with the conclusions . The Management , in this case, has not been able to show that they did not fall in the category of the establishments definedby thejudgment of the Supreme Court as industry in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage case ( supra) , therefore their claim in this regard is rejected .

Management produced Lt. Col. P. C. Vohra as their witness who in his statement could not say whether the lists of witnesses had been provided to the workınan or not, at the time of serving the charge sheets on him . He said the same about the list of documents , when stated thatfrom the record he cannot make out whether the list of documents were served upon the workman along with the charge sheet or not. Fie claimed that he had produced the witnesses of the Management before the inquiry officer , but the statement of the witnesses do not show that they were produced by Mr. Vohra as no questions are shown to have been put to the witnesses by him . Had he put the questions to witnesses then why the inquiry officer did not record the questions having been put by Mr. Vohra . He admitted that the Management had not produced any evidence to show that the seized liquor was the property of the Management .

After going through the facts and the circumstance ofthe case, I am of the opinion that management has failed to show that they held fair and proper inquiry against the workman thus the enquiry report and the punishment awarded in that cases is quashed. 1 am further ofthe opinion that the Management has also failed to show that the evidence available with them is sufficient to justify the punishment awarded to the workman . In my opinion the punishment awarded was too harsh and disproportionate . I am further of the opinion that the Management has failed to observe the provision of Sec . 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act as , they did not issue notice to the workman before terminating his services nor paid him the salary in lieu of the notice period. They also did not pay him the termination compensation and also did not inform the appropriate Govt . about the proposed termination . As such the termination of the workman is bad in law and for this reason also the termination is quashed .

After going through the evidence available on the record I am ofthe opinion that a fair and proper inquiry was not conducted by the Management against the workman beforeterminating his services . I am further ofthe opinion that the Management has failed to produce any evidence to connect the workman with the charge framed against him . The Management was allowed to produce evidence to show that even if the inquiry was held to be not proper and fair , they have sufficient evidence to show that the workman was involved in the incident , therefore , the punishment awarded to him was just and legal . The Management was provided full opportunity to produce the evidence, but they examined only one witness who was not directly connected with the incident and the said witness could not show that the workman was involved in the sale of alleged liquor to an unauthorized person .

Ithas come in the evidence that the liquor was sold in the name of two official of the management who were ex - servicemen but there has come no evidence on record to shown that they were not entitled to buy six bottle of whisky each and the issue of liquor in that quantity in their name was illegal . It is true that the liquor was found in possession of an unauthorized but it is not show that the said liquor was handed over to the civilian, by U. K. Vishwas although there has come evidence that it was N. K. Niranjan Singh who had received the money and had given the liquor to Pradeep Bhardwaj , the witness in the case.

Now the question comes as to what relief the workman is entitled to . There has come no evidence on record that the workman remained gainfully engaged after the determination of his services . There was no question put to him in this regard nor he himself said anything in this regard. In the statement of claim he however , claimed for full back wages and all other service benefits including continuity in service . As per law it was the duty of the workman to prove that he was not gainfully engagedfrom the date of termination of services and so he should be given full back wages . Since he has failed to prove this fact, it is presumed that he did earn during the period of termination of his services . However when his termination from service has been quashed, he deserve to be paid back wages, if no more , at least to supplement his expected earning during that period . Therefore , if allow him back wages to the tune of 25 % . The Management is directed to takehim back in service immediately and give him all service benefits which he would have got as if there was no order oftermination ofhis service . The back wages be paid only to the extent of 25 %. The award is passed in these terms . Leta copy of it be sent to appropriate Govt . for necessary action and file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer The next plea raised by the management is that they are not industry , therefore , the proceeding under the Industrial Dispute Act could not be initiated against them . The question whether an establishment is an Industry fell forthe consideration of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofBangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V/s A. Rajjappa 1978 LAB IC 778. Their lordship defined as to what industry is . They categorically held that where there [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 10 अमस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3588.- 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1004/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार 'को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/465/99 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3588. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1004/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006 .

[No. L-40012/465/99 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI KULDIP SINGH Case No. I.D.No 1004/2005

Registered on 17-09-2005 Date ofDecision 2-08-2006

Shri Ashok Kumar C/ o Shri N. K Jeet , President, Telecom Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab)

7765

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person. His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing . The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence rightfrom June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment of Rs . 100 as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June , 2006 nor produced the evidence . He also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present. It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed.

The Government of India, vide notification No. L -40012 / 465/ 1999 /IR( DU) dated 13th March , 2000 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action ofthe General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Pb . ) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Ashok Kumar , a workman , engaged through Contractor Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f 1st March , 1999 was legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date .

The workman , is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as a Peon inthe office ofGMT Hoshiarpur w.e.f 1st Dec. , 1997 on a monthly salary of Rs . 1780/ - upto 31st Aug. , 1998; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet, inquiry and compensation . They retained his juniars in service and also recruited fresh hand ; that the workman has remained unemployed till date . He has prayed for setting aside the order ofhis termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of his services .

.....Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager , Department of Telecom , Hoshiarpur

Respondent

APPEARANCE :

Mr.N.K Jeet For the Workman

For the Management

Ms.Deepali Puri,

Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No. 521 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory TheManagement filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman. He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them. Accordingto them Management had entered into a contract with one Ashok Kumar Sharma , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work . Thus the Management has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed . As such, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter. It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management. They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties .

7766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

workman, which was received by the Central Government on10-8-2006.

[No. L -40012/489/2000- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them, the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Government . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that of principles of naturaljustice.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER

SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Case No. L.D. No 1044/2005

Registered on 19-09-2005 Date ofDecision 2-08-2006

Shri Harbans Lal C/o Shri N. K. Jeet , President, Telecom

Labour Union, 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal SinghBasti RoadBhatinda (Punjab)

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager , Department ofTelecom, Hoshiarpur

......Respondent

APPEARANCE

Mr. N.K Jeet

For the Workman

Ms.Deepali Puri ,

FortheManagement

Advocate.

AWARD

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the filebe consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त , 2006

का.आ. 3589.- 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1044/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/489/2000- आई आर( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receiptNo. 512 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over. This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case. The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His, representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing. The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce theevidence on payment of Rs . 100/-as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June, 2006 nor produced the evidence .He also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present. It is inthese circumstances his evidence has been closed.

The Government of India, vide notification No.L- 40012/489/2000/ IR(DU) dated 29th Dec. , 2001 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Pb. ) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Harbasns Lal, a workman, engaged through Contractor S.O. 3589.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1044/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

7767

Industrial Disputes Act . The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief.

Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f. 28th Feb. , 1999 was legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date .

Considering the facts and circumstances ofthe case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 10 अगस्त, 2006 The workman, in his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as a workman in the office of SDOP /T, Hoshiarpur w.e.f. Ist Jan. , 1995 on a monthly salary ofRs . 2138 upto 28th Feb. , 1999 that the Management terminated his services without any charge-sheet, inquiry and compensation . They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand; that the workman has remained unemployed till date. He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of hisservices .

का.आ. 3590.-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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1046/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/485/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 10th August, 2006

S.O. 3590.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1046/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006.

[No. L-40012/485/2000- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer TheManagement filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman. He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them. According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Ashok Kumar Sharma , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work . Thus the Management has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter. It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands. as, according to them, the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt. They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and that of principles of naturaljustice.

ANNEXURE CENTRAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Case No. I.D.No 1046/2005

Registered on 19-09-2005 Date ofDecision 2-08-2006 .

ShriMohinder Singh C /o Shri N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union, 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road Bhatinda (Punjab)

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Department of Telecom, Hoshiarpur

...Respondent The workman filed his rejoinder and affidavit but he did not add anything new to the facts he stated in the Claim Petition . Thus I find that the claim made by the workman has been categorically denied by the Management and the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. So much so he himself has not appeared as witness in the case to prove his affidavit . Therefore, his affidavits cannot be considered as a piece of evidence since the Management has not got the opportunity to test the averments made in the affidavits by cross examining the workman. In short I do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman had served the Management from 1st Jan. , 1995 on a salary of Rs . 2138 per month as a workman in office of SDOP/T, Hoshiarpur and his services were terminated by the Management on 28th Feb. , 1999, without following the provisions of 7768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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

Mr. N.K. Jeet

For the Workman

For the Management :

Ms. Deepali Puri Advocate .

AWARD

the Management has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . Accordingto them the Contractor is a party , but he has not been arrayed . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief- Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter . It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them , the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Government . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act , 1947 and that of principles of natural justice.

The workman continues to be absent. A notice was issued to himto appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No. 512 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/ C carrying the notice has been received back unserved. The statutory period is over. This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing. The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June, 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment of Rs . 100 as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June, 2006 nor produced the evidence . He also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present . It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed .

The Government of India , vide notification No. L-40012/485 /2000/IR (DU) dated 29th Dec. , 2000 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom, Hoshiarpur ( Pb. ) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Mohinder Singh, a workman engaged through Contractor M/s . Ram Krishan Budhram w.e.f. 28th Feb. , 1999 was legal andjustified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date .

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and thathe is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion . KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्त , 2006

The workman , in his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as a workman in the office ofSDOT, Tanda w.e.f. 1st May, 1985 on a monthly salary of Rs . 2138 upto 28th Feb. , 1999 that the Management terminated his services without any chargesheet, inquiry and compensation . They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand; that the workman has remained unemployed till date. He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of hisservices.

का.आ. 3591.- 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 965/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/28/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी TheManagement filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are industry nor the workman is a workman . He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them. According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Ram Krishan Budhram, to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work . Thus [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

NewDelhi , the 10th August, 2006

S.O. 3591.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 965/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on10-8-2006.

7769

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

hiswitness is present . It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed .

The Government of India , vide Notification No.L- 40012/ 28 / 2000 / IR( DU) dated 30th May, 2000 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager , Telecom, Hoshiarpur (PB . ) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Kuldip Singh, a workman , engaged through Contractor Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f 1st March , 1999 was legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date .

[No. L-40012/28/2000 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

-PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri Kuldip Singh Case No.I.D.No 965/2005

Registered on 15-9-2005

Date ofDecision 2-8-2006 .

Shri Kuldip Singh C/o Shri N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union , Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road , Bhatinda (Punjab )

Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Department of Telecom,

Hoshiarpur

Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman

The workman , in his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as Cable Jointer in the office of SSA Hoshiarpur w.e.f 1st Dec. , 1993 on a monthly salary of Rs . 2138/- upto 28th Feb. , 1999; that the Management terminated his services without any chargesheet, inquiry and compensation . They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand; that the workman has remained unemployed till date . He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of hisservices .

Mr. N.K. Jeet

Ms.Deepali Puri, For the Management

Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No. 514 on 7th June, 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/ C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing. The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence management of Rs.100/-as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June , 2006 nor produced the evidence . He also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither he is present nor any of 2538 GI/06-34

TheManagement filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman . He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them. According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Ram Krishan , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work . Thus the Management no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed. As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter. It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them , the power of engagement ofdaily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of industrial DisputesAct, 1947 and that of principles of natural justice .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

evidence since the Management has not got the opportunity to test the averments made in the affidavit by cross-examining the workman . In short I , do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman håd served the Management from 1st Dec. , 1993 on a salary of Rs . 2138/- per month as a Cable Jointer with SSA Hoshiarpur and his services were terminated by the Management on 28th Feb. , 1999 , without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act . The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and thathe is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 10 अगस्त 2006

का.आ. 3592. - 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. 11 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 647/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/334/99- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3592. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 647/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006 .

[No. L -40012/334/99 - IR (DU )]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER :

Shri Kuldip Singh CASE NO.I.D. No 647/2k5 .

Registered on 24-8-2005 .

Date ofDecision 31-7-2006 .

Shri Gurmail Singh C/ o Shri N. K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union , Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab )

...Petitioner

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

Versus

The General Manager , Department of Telecom , Bhatinda (Punjab)-151001

..Respondent

APPEARANCE

Forthe Workman

None

For the Management

G.C. Babbar,

Advocate

AWARD

The Govt . of India vide their Notification No.L- 40012/334/99 - IR( DU) ) dated 27th Jan. , 2000 referred the following dispute for the adjudication of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of General Manager , Telecom , Bharinda in terminating the services of Sh . Gurmail Singh S / o Sh . Lora Singh is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled and from which date ? "

The notice of the reference was given to the parties . The workman appeared through representative whereas theManagement appeared through Counsel. The workman filed statement of claim and the Management filed their reply, duly supported by affidavit of their Divisional Engineer, Rajinder Singh. They also placed on record photo copies of the documents R1 to R18 . The workman filed the affidavit of his representative and also placed on record some documents . He also filed his rejoinder .

Therecord ofthe file shows that the workman stopped appearing in the case right from Jan. , 2006. His representative also did not appear . Finally a notice under R/ C was sent to him under Postal Receipt No. 2358 dated 31st March , 2006. Till 1st May , 2006, the next date fixed in thecase, neither the workman appeared nor the notice sent to him was received back unserved and the Court presumes that the notice was served upon the workman , but he has not appeared and this showed that the workman has lost interest in prosecuting this case . The Court further showed indulgence and waited for the workman till today , although there was no specific order in this regard . The workman is not present even today and that supports the conclusions the Court has arrived at against him.

Onrecord there is no evidence nor even the statement ofthe workman in support of his claim . The Management has categorically denied the claim made by him in the statement of claim. They have also placed on record documents including the agreement to provide the labour to the Management by a contractor . Thus , there is no evidence on record to show that the Management had engaged the workman on 1st Jan. , 1993 , on a salary of Rs . 2138/- per month and he served them upto 1st March , 1999 . There is also no evidence to show that the Management had terminated the services of the workman in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and principles of 7771 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

AWARD

natural justice. The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he isnot entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . and file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3593. - 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1002/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/467/99 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No.520 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 butneither the workman has appeared nor the R/C carrying the notice has been received back unserved. The statutory period is over. This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing. The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment ofRs . 100/-as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June , 2006 nor produced the evidence .He also did not pay the cost to the Manageinent . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present. It is inthese circumstances his evidence has been closed.

S.O. 3593. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1002/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between employers in relation the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006.

The Govt. of India, vide notification No.L - 40012/ 467/ 1999/ IR(DU) dated 13th March , 2000 asked this Tntamal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager , Telecom, Hoshiarpur (Pb . ) in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Sodhi Ram , as a workman, engaged through Contractor Shri Ashok KumarSharma w.e.f. 1st March , 1999 was legal and justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date.

[No. L-40012/467 /99 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-II CHANDIGARH

SHRI KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No 1002/2005

Registered on 16-9-2005

Date ofDecision 2-8-2006 .

The workman, is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as Cable Jointer in the office of Telecom District, Hoshiarpur w.e.f. Ist Jan. , 1995 on a monthly salary ofRs . 2138 /- upto 28th Feb. , 1999 ; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet , inquiry and compensation . They retained hisjuniors in service and also recruited fresh hand: that the workman has remained unemployed till datc.He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of his services .

Shri Sodhi Ram C /o Shri N. K. Jeet, President , Teleconı Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab)

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Department of Telecom , Hoshiarpur

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Mr. N.K Jeet .

For theManagement

Ms.Deepali Puri , Advocate .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was givca алу appointment letter. It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department , is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employce and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them , the power of engagement ofdaily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and that of principles of natural justice .

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ 3594.- 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 964/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/463/99 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3594. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 964/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006 .

[No. L-40012/463 /99 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH SHRI KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer CASE NO.LD.No 964/2k5 Registered on 15-9-2005 Date of Decision 2-8-2006 .

Miss Sharanjit Kaur C/ o Shri N. K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda ( Punjab)

... Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Department of Telecom, Hoshiarpur

...Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Mr. N.K Jeet.

For the Management

Ms. Deepali Puri , Advocate .

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to her to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No. 511 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 butneither the workman has appeared nor the R/ C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but she has chosen not to appear in the case. The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . Her representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing . The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence payment of Rs . 100 as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June , 2006 nor produced the evidence . She also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither she is present nor any of her witness is present . It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

TheGovt . of India, vide notification No.L-40012/463/ 1999 /IR(DU) dated 13th March, 2000 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Pb .) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Miss Sharanjit Kaur, a workman, engaged through Contractor Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f 1st March, 1999 was legal and justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date.

The workman, in her statement of claim, stated that she was engaged and she served the Management as Clerk in the office of TRA Branch office of GMT, Hoshiarpur w.e.f. 24th June , 1996 on a monthly salary of Rs.2138/- upto 28th Feb. , 1999 ; that the Management terminated her services without any charge sheet , inquiry and. compensation . They retained her juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand; that the workman has remained unemployed till date. She has prayed for setting aside the order of her termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which she could have got but for the termination of her services.

The Management filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman . She was neither engaged by the Management nor her services were terminated by them . According to them the Management had entered into a contractwith one Ashok Kumar Sharma, to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work . Thus theManagement has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor she was given any appointment letter. It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as, according to them , the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Government . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that of principles of natural justice.

The workman filed her rejoinder and affidavit but she did not add anything new to the facts he stated in the Claim Petition. Thus I find that the claim made by the workman has been categorically denied by the Management and the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of her claim . So much so she herself has not appeared as witness in the case to prove his affidavit. Therefore , her affidavits cannot be considered as a piece of evidence since the Management has not got the

7773

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2 , 2006/भाद्र 11 , 1928

opportunity to test the averments made in the affidavits by cross examining the workman . In short I do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman had served theManagement from 24th June , 1996 on a salary ofRs.2138/- per month as a Clerk with TRA Branch office ofGMT, Hoshiarpur and her services were terminated by the Management on 28th Feb. , 1999 , without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that she has failed to prove her claim and that she is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3595.- 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 952/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/141/2001 आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3595. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 952/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006.

[No. L-40012/141 /2001 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOURCOURT- II CHANDIGARH SHRI KULDIP SINGH,: Presiding Officer CASE NO.LD.No 952/2k5 Registered on 15-09-2005 Date ofDecision 1-08-2006 .

Shri Darvin Singh C/o Shri Madan Mohan, House No. 1212, Sector -22-B, Chandigarh

Petitioner 7774

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

Versus

The GeneralManager , Telecom, Amristar (Punjab )

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Mr. N.K Jeet .

Forthe Workman

of the Act are applicable to them . Even otherwise the workmanwas not engaged by the Management nor were his services terminated by them . According to them the Management had entered into an agreement with a contractor and it was the contractor who provided them the labour . The Management has also taken a number of grounds to oppose the claim of the workman , both legal and factual .

For theManagement :

Mr. G. C. Babbar, Advocate .

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . Management appears through Counsel .

Theworkman filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim. He also filed his affidavit supporting the claim made by him andproduced a Photostat copy of daily attendance register for the year 1998. The Management produced the affidavit oftheir SDE, Ram Gopal . However, when it came the turn of the parties to produce their evidence , the workman appeared on 23rd March, 2005 and his part statement was recorded. Thereafter, he absented from Court appearance , as stated above and has not turned up so far . He has also failedto produce any evidence in support of his claim . The pleadings of the parties are not proved and in this , the loser is the workman since he has failed to prove that the action of the General Manager, Telecom, Amritsar, in teminating his services was notjust and legal . Thus , the workman has failed to prove his claim , therefore , he is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after duecompletion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

It is on record that the workman has not appeared in this Court on any date fixed since the day the case was transferred to this Tribunal . Every effort has been made to serve him on the address given in the notification and then on the address he gave in the letter of authority, executed in favour of his representative Shri N.K Jeet . The summons sent, were received back with the report of Shri Madan Mohan , care of whom he had given his address , that the workman is not in contact with him. Shri Madan Mohan is apracticing Advocate in this Tribunal who even personally stated so . On the summons sent to him on his residential address ofAmritsar, it is reported by the Postal Authorities that the workman is not available on that address . Thus the efforts to serve the workman have failed. On his own part the workman has not bothered to know as to what happened to his case. It is in these circumstances the reference is being answered in his absence .

का.आ. 3596.-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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1048/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/449/2000 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

The Government of India, vide their Notification No. L-40012/ 141/2001-(IR(DU)) dated 6th Aug., 2001 desiredto know from this Tribunal whether the action of the General Manager Telecom , Amritsar in terminating the services of Shri Darvin Singh S /o Shri Sunder Singh, the workman , is just and legal. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date . The workman , on a notice of the notification appeared and claimed that he had served the Management as Security Guard in the office of DTSD Amritsar, on a salary of Rs . 1200/-w.e.f. 1st April , 1996 to 28th Feb. , 1999 ; that the Management terminated the services of the workman without charge sheet, inquiry or compensation . They also violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 , hereinafter to be referred as "ACT" and principles of natural justice . They retained the juniors of the workman and also recruited fresh hands, without providing opportunity to the workman. He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination from service with full benefits of continuity in service and back wages.

S.O. 3596. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1048 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, wich was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006.

[No. L-40012/449 /2000 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by their Written Statement. It is their claim that neither the Management is an industry nor the provisions [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH Presiding Officer :

7775

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

Shri Kuldip Singh

Case No.I.D.No 1048/2k5

Registered on 19-09-2005

Date ofDecision 2-08-2006 .

Shri Gurmail Singh C/o Shri N. K. Jeet, President , Telecom Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road Bhatinda, (Punjab)

Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager, Department of Telecom ,

Hoshiarpur

Respondent

APPEARANCE

workman under SDOT , Hoshiarpur w.e.f. 1st Nov. , 1993 on a monthly salary of Rs.2138/ - upto 28th Feb. , 1999 ; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet, inquiry and compensation. They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand ; that the workman has remained unemployed till date. He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of his services .

Mr.N.K Jeet

Forthe Workman

Ms. Deepali Puri

For the Management

Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No.508 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/ C carrying the notice has been received back unserved. The statutory period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing . The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment of Rs . 100/- as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June, 2006 nor produced the evidence . He also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present. It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed,

The Govt . of India , vide notification No. L-40012/ 449/2000 / IR( DU) dated 18th Jan. , 2001 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager , Telecom, Hoshiarpur (Pb.) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Gurmail Singh, a workman , engaged through Contractor Messrs . Gurbachan Lal w.e.f. 28th Feb. , 1999 was legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date.

The workman, is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as a The Management filed their replyto the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman . He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them . According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Gurbachan Lál , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work . Thus the Management has no information whether the workman wás supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed .As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter . It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge ofthe Management . They have also denied the relationship ofemployee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them , the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and that of principles of naturaljustice.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and 7776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3597.- औद्योमिक 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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1049/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/447/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी

but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/ C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not presenttoday nor he was present on the last date of hearing. The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment of Rs.1 00 /- as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June , 2006 nor produced the evidence . He also did not pay the cost to the Manageinent . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present. It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed .

New Delhi , the 10th August, 2006

TheGovt . of India , vide notification No.L -400 12/447 / 2000 /IR ( DU ) dated 18th Jan. , 2001 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Pb. ) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Daljeet Singh, a workman, engaged through Contractor Messrs. Gurbachan Lal w.e.f. 28th Feb. , 1999 was legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date.

S.O. 3597-In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1049/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. II 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 10-8-2006 .

[No. L-40012/447/2000 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL, GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh

Presiding Officer:

Case No.I.D.No 1049/2k5

Registered on 19-09-2005

Date ofDecision 2-08-2006 .

The workman, is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as a workman under SDOT Hoshiarpur w.e. f. 1st April, 1997 on amonthly salary of Rs.2138 /- upto 28th Feb. , 1999; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet, inquiry and compensation . They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand; that the workman has remained unemployed till date . He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of his services.

Shri Duljeet Singh C/ o Shri N. K. Jeet, President , Telecom Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti

Road Bhatinda (Punjab)

Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Department ofTelecom,

Hoshiarpur

Respondent

APPEARANCE

Mr. N.K Jeet

For the Workman

Ms. Deepali Puri

For the Management

Advocate

AWARD

TheManagement filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman . He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them . According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Gurbachan Lal , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work. Thus the Management has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter. It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department , is not in the The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No.519 on 7th June, 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 भारत का राजपत्र :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7777

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , accordingto them , the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and that of principles of natural justice .

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3598.-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 II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1047/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012 /451/2000 आई आर ( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3598. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1047/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. - 11 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between empoyers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their 2538GI/06-35

workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006.

[No. L-40012/451/2000 - IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL, GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH Presiding Officer :

Shri Kuldip Singh CASE NO.1.D.No 1047/2K5

REGISTEREDON 19-09-2005

DATE OF DECISION 2-08-2006 .

Shri Surinder Pal C/ o Shri N. K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab)

....... Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Department ofTelecom, Hoshiarpur

....... Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Mr. N.K Jeet

For the Management

Ms. Deepali Puri Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent. A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No.517 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor. the R/ C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over. This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice, but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person. His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor hewas present on the last date of hearing . The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities toproduce the evidence right from June , 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment of Rs.100 as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June, 2006 nor produced the evidence . He also did not pay the cost to the Management . Today again neither he is present nor any of his witness is present . It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed .

TheGovt. of India, vide notification No. L -40012/ 451 /2000/ IR( DU) dated 18th Jan. , 2001 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the GeneralManager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Punjab) in ordering 7778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

disengagement/termination of services of Shri Surinder Pal , a workman, engaged through Contractor M/ s . Gurbachan Lalw.e.f 1st March , 1999 was legal and justified? Ifnot , to whatrelief the workman is entitled and from which date .

The workman, in is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as Skilled Casual Labourer in the office of GMT Hoshiarpur w.e.f 1st June, 1997 on a monthly salary of Rs.2138 upto 30th Nov. , 1998; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet , inquiry and compensation . They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand ; that the workman has remained unemployed till date . He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of his services .

TheManagement filed their replyto the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman . He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them . According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Gurbachan Lal , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work. Thus the Management has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party . But he has not been arrayed . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter . It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department , is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them , the power ofengagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial DisputesAct 1947 and that of principles of natural justice.

The workman filed his rejoinder and affidavit but he did not add anything new to the facts he stated in the Claim Petition . Thus 1 find that the claim made by the workman has been categorically denied by the Management and the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . So much so he himself has not appeared as witness in the case to prove his affidavit . Therefore , his affidavits cannot be considered as a piece of evidence since the Management has not got the opportunity to test the averments made in the affidavits by cross examining the workman. In short 1 do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman had served theManagement from 1st June , 1997 on a salary ofRs . 2138 per month as a Skilled Casual Labourer with office of GMT

[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii)] Hoshiarpur and his services were terminated by the Management on 30th Nov. , 1998 without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3599.- 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 कर्मकारा के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1043/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -40012/488/ 2000 आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August , 2006

S.O. 3599.-In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1043/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. II Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006 .

[No. L -40012/488 /2000 - IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL, GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER :

SHRI KULDIP SINGH Case No.I.D.No 1043/2k5 Registered on 19-09-2005 Date of Decision 2-08-2006 .

Shri Baljinder Lal C/ o Shri N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom LabourUnion, 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road Bhatinda (Punjab)

.....Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Department of Telecom , Hoshiarpur

..Respondent [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

APPEARANCE :

Mr. N.K Jeet.

Forthe Workman

For the Management

Ms.Deepali Puri

Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to him to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No. 507 on 7th June, 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice, but he has chosen not to appear in the case . The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . His representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing . The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment ofRs . 100/- as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June , 2006 nor produced the evidence. He also did not pay the cost to the Management. Today again neither he is present nor any ofhis witness is present . It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed.

The Govt . of India, vide notification No. L-40012/ 488 /2000/IR (DU) dated 29th Dec., 2000 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager , Telecom , Hoshiarpur (Pb .) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of. Shri Baljinder Lal, as a Lineman engaged through Contractor Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma w.e.f28th Feb. , 1999 was legal andjustified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date.

The workman, is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as Line Man in the office of Telegraph M. T office of GMT, Hoshiarpur w.e.f Ist Oct. , 1993 on a monthly salary of Rs.2138/- upto 28th Feb. , 1999; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet , inquiry and compensation. They retained his juniors in service and also recruited fresh hand ; that the workman has remained unemployed till date . He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which he could have got but for the termination of his services .

7779

सितम्बर 2 , 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

theManagement has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department According to them the Contractor is a party , but he has not been arrayed . As such 11. workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter . It is also their case that whether or not theworkman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management . They have also denied the relationship ofemployee and employer between the parties . they have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as, according to them, the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 and that of principles of natural justice.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any, relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त , 2006

का.आ. 3600,-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 मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1045/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/486/2000- आई आर( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डैस्क अधिकारी 7780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 2 , 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

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

his witness is present. It is in these circumstances his evidence has been closed .

S.O. 3600.- In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1045/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. II 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, whuch was received by the Central Government on 10-8-2006 .

The Govt . of India , vide notification No. L - 40012/ 486/2000 - IR ( DU) dated 29th Dec. , 2000 asked this Tribunal to adjudicate upon and answer whether the action of the General Manager, Telecom , Hoshiarpur ( Pb. ) in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Sarabjit Singh , a workman , engaged through Contractor Messrs . Rarmkrishan Budhram w.e.f 28th Feb. , 1999 was legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date .

[No. L -400 12/486 /2000- IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

SHRIKULDIP SINGH

Presiding Officer:

Case No.I.D.No 1045 /2k5

Registered on 19-09-2005

Date ofDecision 2-08-2006

The workman, is his statement of claim , stated that he was engaged and he served the Management as a workman in the office of S.D.O.T, Tanda w.e.f Jan. , 1995 on amonthly salary of Rs . 2138 upto 28th Feb. , 1999 ; that the Management terminated his services without any charge sheet, inquiry and compensation . They retained hisjuniors in service and also recruited fresh hand ; that the workman has remained unemployed date . He has prayed for setting aside the order of his termination and reinstatement in service with full back wages and all service benefits which she could have got but for the termination of his services .

Shri Sarabjit Singh C/ o Shri N. K. Jeet , President , Telecom Labour Union , 27349 Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti

Road, Bhatinda (Punjab)

..... Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Department ofTelecom ,

Hoshiarpur

Respondent

APPEARANCE

Mr.N.K Jeet

For the Workman

For the Management :

Ms. Deepali Puri Advocate

AWARD

TheManagement filed their reply to the Claim Petition and submitted that neither they are Industry nor the workman is a workman . He was neither engaged by the Management nor his services were terminated by them . According to them the Management had entered into a contract with one Ramkrishan , to provide labour to the Department for performing emergency work. Thus the Management has no information whether the workman was supplied by the Contractor to the Department . According to them the Contractor is a party, but he has not been arrayed. As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. Denying all the other claims made in the Claim Petition it is stated by the Management that they had never paid any wages to the workman nor he was given any appointment letter . It is also their case that whether or not the workman was provided to the Telecom Department, is not in the knowledge of the Management. They have also denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties. They have also denied that the Management retained juniors of the workman or recruited fresh hands as , according to them , the power of engagement of daily wager has been withdrawn by the Govt . They have denied that the Management has violated the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and that of principles of natural justice .

Theworkman filed his rejoinder and affidavit but he did not add anything new to the facts he stated in the Claim Petition . Thus I find that the claim made by the workman has been categorically denied by the Management and the workman has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . So much so he himself has not appeared as witness in the case to prove his affidavit . Therefore, his affidavits cannot be considered as a piece The workman continues to be absent . A notice was issued to her to appear which was sent to him under postal receipt No. 518 on 7th June , 2006. It is now 2nd Aug. , 2006 but neither the workman has appeared nor the R/C carrying the notice has been received back unserved . The statutory period is over . This gives rise to the presumption that the workman has received the notice , but he has chosen not to appear in the case. The record of the file shows that the workman never appeared in this Court in person . Her representative has also stopped appearing in the case and he too is not present today nor he was present on the last date of hearing . The record of the file speaks that the workman was given opportunities to produce the evidence right from June 2004 and it was in these circumstances that the workman was given another opportunity to produce the evidence on payment of Rs . 100/-as costs . The workman neither appeared on 6th June, 2006 nor produced the evidenced . He also did not pay the cost to the Management. Today again neither he is present nor any of [भाग ][ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

of evidence since the Management has not got the opportunity to test the averments made in the affidavits by cross examining the workman. In short I do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman had served the Management from Jan. , 1995 on a salary of Rs.2138/- per month as a workman with S.D.O.T Tanda and his services were terminated by the Management on 28th Feb. , 1999, without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The workman is , therefore , not entitled to anyrelief.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above , the award is passed against the workman holding that he has failed to prove his claim and that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 10 अगस्त, 2006.

का.आ. 3601 , -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. II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 951/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-8-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/ 132/2001- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th August, 2006

S.O. 3601. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 951/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. II 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 10-8-2006.

[No. L-40012/ 132/2001 - IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOURCOURT -II CHANDIGARH Presiding Officer :

Shri Kuldip Singh Case No.I.D.No 951 /2k5

Registered on 15-9-2005

Date of Decision 1-8-2006 .

Ms. Sunil Guleriea C/o Sh . Madan Mohan, H. No. 1212 , Sector 22-B Chandigarh .

Petitioner

Versus

TheGeneral Manager ,Telecom , Amritsar ( Punjab )

Respondent

7781

भारत का राजपत्त्र : सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

APPEARANCE

Forthe Workman

R. K. Rana, AR

Mr. G.C. Babbar FortheManagement

Advocate .

AWARD

The workman is not present. Management appears through counsel . The workman is not appearing since long. She had been served on the address given in the notification , through her representatives and finally on her residential address , given by her in her affidavit . More than one notices under registered cover were issued to the workman and the notice sent under registered cover at her residential address has not been received back even after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days . The court is , therefore, satisfied that the workman has received the notice, it which was sent under registered cover under postal receipt No 877, on 26th of may 2006 , but she has not chosen to appear in the case . It show that she has lost interest to follow up her case .

The Govt. of India vide their notification No. L-40012/ 132/2001 - IR(DU)) dated 6-8-2001 desired of this tribunal to say whether the action of the management of General Manager, Telecom , Amritsar, in terminating the services of Miss Sunil Guleria D/o Shib Singh, is just and illegal and if not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date. The parties appeared and the workman filed the claim petition, to which the Management filed the reply. The workman, in support of her claim , filed her affidavit and rejoinder , the management has produced a number of document including the copy of the agreement for the supply of the labour. The workman appeared, for her statement , which was recorded in part on 23-3-2005. Thereafter, she stopped coming to the court and did not appear to stand to the cross examination of the management . The workman has , therefore , failed to prove that she was engaged as a clerk in the office of DTSP, Bharat Nagar, Amritsar , on 1-4-1996, on the salary of Rs . 1200 and she served the management upto 28-2-1999 , when her services were terminated without chargesheet inquiry and compensation. She has also failed to prove that the management teminated her services in violation of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and principle of naturaljustice they retained her junior and also recruited fresh hand and ignored the claim ofworkman.

The management has denied all the claims of workman. It is submitted by them that the workman was not engaged by them , although she might have served the contractor who provided labour to the management . Therefore , there is complete denial of claim made by the workman.On the part of workman , she has failed to produce any evidence and has not cared to make her his own complete statement . On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workman was engaged by the Management on 1-4-1996, as clerk on a salary of 7782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 2, 2006/BHADRA 11 , 1928

Rs. 1200p.m . and she served the Management in the office ofDTSP , Bharat Nagar , Amritsar till 28-2-1999 when her services were terminated by the management in violation ofprovisions of Industrial disputes act 1947. The workman is, therefore , not entitled to any relief .The award is passed against her holder that she is not entitled to any relief. Let the copy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate Govt . and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

hereby appoints the 1 st September, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI ( except sub - section (1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamilnadu namely :

AreasComprising the Revenue

Centre Name

Kelambakkam

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 17 अगस्त, 2006

का.आ. 3602. - कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वरा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 सितम्बर , 2006 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय-5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे: अर्थात , केन्द्रका नाम केलम्बाक्कम

कांचीपुरम जिला में चेंगलपट्टु तालुक के

1. चेम्मन्चेरी

2. नावलुर

3. इगादूर

4. कषिपुत्तूर

5. केलम्बाक्कम

6. पडुर

7. तैयूर

8. इडयान कुप्पम

9. आलत्तूर

10. सात्तान्कुप्पम

11. नेडुकुड्म

12. रत्तिनमंगलम

13. कोलपक्कम

14. तिरूपोरूर

के अन्तर्गत आने आने राजस्व गाँव [संख्या: एस-38013/53/2006 - एस. एस. - 1 ] के. सी. जैन , निदेशक New Delhi , the 17th August, 2006

S.O. 3602. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

Villages of

1. Chemmancheri

2.Navaloor

3. Egattur

4.Kazhiputtur

5. Kelambakkam

6.padur

7. Thaiyur

8. Edayankuppam

9. Alathur

10. Sathankuppam

11. Nedungundram

12.Rathinamangalam

13.Kolapakkam

14.Thirupporur

of Chengalpat Taluk in

Kanchee puram District .

[No.S- 38013/53/2006- S.S.I ]

K.C. JAIN , Director नईदिल्ली 17 अगस्त , 2006

का. आ. 3603.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वरा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 सितम्बर , 2006 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवायं जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे: - अर्थात, " जिला तिरूवनन्तपुरम के चिरयिनकीषु तालुक में वामनापुरम " [संख्या: एस-38013/52/2006- एस. एस. - 1 ]

के. सी. जैन , निदेशक New Delhi , the 17th August , 2006

S.O. 3603.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section I of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st September , 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter - IV (except Sections 44 7783

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 2, 2006/ भाद्र 11 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except sub- section (1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-

"Vamanapuram in Chirayinkeezhu Taluk in Trivandrum District ."

[No. S - 38013 /52/2006 - S.S.I ] K.C. JAIN, Director नई दिल्ली 22 अगस्त, 2006

का. आ. 3604.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किं लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप - खण्ड (vi) केउपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 999 दिनांक1-3-2006 द्वारा यूरेनियम उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिकी विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 19 में शामिल हैं, को , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-3-2006 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप - खण्ड (vi) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road ,

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi- 110054 .

उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-9-2006 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है। [फा. संख्याः एस-11017/9/97- आई. आर. ( पी. एल. ) ] गुरजीत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd August , 2006

S.O. 3604.- Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub -clause (vi ) of. the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O.No.999 dated 1-3-2006 the service in Uranium Industry which is coveredby item 19 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 15th March, 2006 .

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi) of clause ( n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 15th September, 2006 .

[F. No. S. 11 017/9 / 97-IR (PL) ] GURJOT KAUR, Jt. Secy Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064