रजिस्टी सं. डी. एल. ( एन) 04/0007/2003-05
REGD.NO.D.L. (ND)04/0007/2003-05 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
सं. 52]
No. 52]
नई दिल्ली , दिसम्बर 24 दिसम्बर 30 , 2006 , शनिवार पौष ३ पौष 9 , 1928 NEW DELHI , DECEMBER 24-DECEMBER 30, 2006, SATURDAY/PAUSA 3 PAUSA 9, 1928 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II-खण्ड 3-उपखण्ड (Ii)
PART II-Section 3-Sub- section ( ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए संविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय
(विधि कार्य विभाग )
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसंबर , 2006
का.आ. 4975.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता 1973 (1974का 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , श्री मंदर महेश गोस्वामी , अधिवक्ता को मुम्बई उच्चन्यायालय में भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय द्वारा या उसके विरुद्ध सभी दाडिक मामलों का, जिनके अंतर्गत दांडिक रिट याचिकाएं, दांडिक अपीलें , दांडिक पुनरीक्षण , दांडिक निर्देश और दांडिक आवेदन भी हैं, संचालन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस शर्त के अधीन रहते हुए कि श्री मंदर महेश गोस्वामी , लोक अभियोजक के रूप में अपनी नियुक्ति की अवधि के दौरान भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय के विरुद्ध ऊपर निर्देशित किसी दांडिक मामले में मुंबई उच्च न्यायालय में उपसंजात नहीं होंगे , तत्काल प्रभाव से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या 3916 G1 /2006
(10699)
अगले आदेश तक , इनमें से जो भी पूर्वतर हो , लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं. 23 (2)/2006-न्यायिक ] आर. एम. शर्मा, अपर सचिव MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs)
New Delhi , the 18th December , 2006 S.O. 4975. In exercise of the powers conferredby. sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Mandar Mahesh Goswami, Advocate as PublicProsecutor with immediate effect for the purpose of conducting all criminal cases including Criminal Writ Petitions, Criminal Appeals , Criminal Revisions , Criminal References and Criminal applications by or against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government, in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai , [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10700
10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2003-04 से 2004-05 ( वि.व. 2002-03 से 2003-04) के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " मै . टेक्नोक्रेट्स एण्ड मैनेजर्स सोसायटी फॉर एडवांस लर्निंग एण्ड ग्रामोत्थान , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।
for a period ofthree years or until further orders, whichever is carlier , subject to the condition that Shri Mandar Mahesh Goswami , shall not appear against the Union of India or any Department or Office of the Central Government inany criminal case referred to above in the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai during the period of his appointment as Public Prosecutor .
[F. No. 23 (2)/2006-Judl . ] R. M. SHARMA, Addl . Secy.
बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड (23 सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।
[स. मुआआआआआ ( समन्वय )/जय/ 10 ( 23 सी) ( vi )/06-07 ]
ए, जे. मजूमदार, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त वित्त मंत्रालय (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग) नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर , 2006
(Department of Revenue)
(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX)
Jaipur , the 22nd December , 2006
No. 04/2006-07
का.आ. 4976. - राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड ( 3 ) के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 3 ( ज ) और उपधारा ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्री राम चन्द्र खूंटिया, नित्रासी-320 , वी पी हाऊस , रफी मार्ग , नई दिल्ली, को अधिसूचना की तारीख से, तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगला आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , आन्ध्रा बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।
[सं. 9/45/2005- बी ओ- I ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव
S.O. 4977. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with Rule 2CA of the Income -tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax , Jaipur hereby approves "M/s Technocrats & Managers Society for Advanced Learning and Gramothan, Jaipur" for the purpose of the said section for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2004-05 . (F.Y. 2002-03 to2003-04).
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofEconomic Affairs) (Banking Division) NewDelhi , the 20th December, 2006
Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub - clause (vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income -Tax Act , 1961 read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- Tax Rules , 1962.
[No. CC/Addl . CIT ( Coord .)/JPR/ 10 (23C)(vi )/06-07] A.J. MAJUMDAR, Chief Commissioner of Income -Tax
(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क पुणे- III के आयुक्त का कार्यालय )
पुणे, 7 दिसम्बर, 2006
S.O. 4976. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 3 ( h) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Rama Chandra Khuntia, resident of 320, V.P. House , Rafi Marg , New Delhi as part -time non- official Director the Board of Directors of Andhra Bank for a pcriod of three ycars from the date of notification or until further orders , whichever is earlier .
सं. 01/2006 सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन-टैरिफ ) [No. 9/45/2005-BO-I ] G.B. SINGH, Dy Secy.
(राजस्व विभाग ) (कार्यालय: मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त ) जयपुर , 22 दिसम्बर , 2006 सं. 04/2006-07
का.आ. 4978.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 01-07-1994 को जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्या 33/1994 सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टैरिफ ) के अधीन मुझे प्रदत्त अधिकारों को कार्यान्वित करते हुए, मैं , बी. एस. कृष्णन , आयुक्त केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क तथा सीमा शुल्क पुणे- III एतद्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य के गांव- कोंढवे बुद्रुक में स्थित , मौजे येवलेवाड़ी, तालुका:
का.आ. 4977.- आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
हवेली, जिला- पुणे को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 9 के अधीन तथा 100 % ई. ओ. यू. स्थापना हेतु, वेअर हाउसिंग स्टेशन के रूप में घोषित करता हूँ।
[फा. सं. वी. जी. एन. (30 ) / 112/पारी/06 ]
वी. एस. कृष्णन, आयुक्त (OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS , PUNE - III) Pune , the 7th December , 2006
No. 01/2006 (Customs (N.T. )
S.O. 4978.- In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No. 33/ 1994- Cus . (N.T.) dated 01-07-1994 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi under clause (a) Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962. I , V. S. Krishnan , Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Pune - III Commissionerate , Pune , hereby declare the place Mauje- Ycwalewadi under village kondhwa Budruk Tal . Haveli , Dist-Pune, in the state of Maharashtra to be warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) , for purpose of setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Unit as approved by the Development Commissioner , SEEPZ, Mumbai .
[F. No. VGN (30 )/ 112/PARI/06 ] V. S. KRISHNAN, Commissioner
वस्त्र मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4979.- केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 4 की. उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अध्यधीन इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए निम्नलिखित व्यक्ति का नामांकन अधिसूचित करती है ।
अधिनियम की धारा 4 ( 3 ) ( जे ) के तहत केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा नामित 1. श्री वी. एस. थंगावेल , वेडापट्टी डाकघर , उदुमलपेट तालुक , कोयंबटूर जिला, तमिलनाडु-638203
[फा. सं. 25012/56/99- रेशम ]
भूपेन्द्र सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव
10701 MINISTRY OF TEXTILES New Delhi , the 20th December, 2006
S.O. 4979. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (3 ) of Section 4 of the Central Silk Board Act 1948 , the Central Government hereby notifies the nomination of the following persons to serve as member of the Central Silk Board for a period three years from the date of this notification subject to the provisions of the said Act.
Nominated by the Central Government under Section 4(3)(j) oftheAct .
1. Shri .V. M. Thangavel , VedapattiP.O. Udumalpet Taluk , Coimbatore District Tamil Nadu -638203
[F. No. 25012/56/99-Silk]
BHUPENDRA SINGH, Jt. Secy.
स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )
नईदिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4980.-केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) (क) के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में तथा पुड्डुचेरी सरकार के साथ परामर्श करके डा. दिलीप कुमार बालीगा को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के सदस्य के रूप में मनोनीत किया है ।
अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क) के अधीन मनोनीत " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 30 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां रखी जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-
पुडुचेरी सरकार" "30. डा. दिलीप कुमार बालीगा
निदेशक,
स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण सेवाएं, स्वास्थ्यविभाग काम्पलेक्स, एल आई सी अफिस के सामने , न्यूश्रम पुडुचेरी -13 ।
[सं. वी-11013/1/2005 -एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ]
जे मजूमदार , अवर सचिव [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 10702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना का.आ.सं. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है; अर्थात् (Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi , the 18th December , 2006
उक्त अधिसूचना में शीर्ष " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अंतर्गत निर्वाचित " के अधीन क्रम संख्या 80 के बाद निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी; अर्थात्:-
महाराष्ट्र आयुर्विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय" S.O. 4980.- Whereas the Central Government , in pursuance of clause ( a) of sub - section ( 1 ) ( a) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) and in consultation with the Government of Puducherry have nominated Dr. Dilip Kumar Baliga 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 .
" 81. डा. एस.डी. दलवी, प्रोफेसर एवं निवारक सामजिक आर्युविज्ञान विभागाध्यक्ष, गवर्नमेंट मेडिकल कालेज , नांदेड ।
[सं. वी-11013/5/2002- एमई ( पी- I ) ]
जे. मजूमदार, अवर सचिव 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;
New Delhi , the 18th December, 2006 In the said notification , under the heading, 'Nominated under clause ( a) of sub- section ( I ) of section 3' , for serial number 30 and the entries thereto , the following serial number and entries shall be inserted, namely:-
"Government of Puducherry"
S.O. 4981.-Whereas in pursuance of the provision ofsub- section ( 1 ) (b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 19560 Dr. S. D. Dalvi , Professor and Head, Department of PSM, Government Medical College, Nanded, member of the faculty of Medicine, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences has been elected by the Senate the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from date of issue of this notification .
"30 Dr. Dilip Kumar Baliga Director, Health& Family Welfare Services Health Department Complex Opp . to LIC Office , New Saram, Puducherry-13
[No. V- 11013/1/2005- ME (Policy -1) ]
J. MAJUMDAR, Under Secy .
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:-
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसंबर , 2006
Inthe said Notification , under the heading, "Elected under clause (b) of sub section ( 1 ) ofSection 3" , after serial number 80 , the following entries shall be added, namely:-
Maharashtra Uni-
"81. Dr. S. D. Dalvi
versity ofHealth Seiences"
Professor & Head Department of PSM Government Medical College Nanded.
का. आ. 4981.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डा. एस.डी. दलवी , प्रोफेसर और निवारक सामाजिक आर्युविज्ञान विभागाध्यक्ष , गवर्नमेंट मेडिकल कालेज , नांदेड़ , चिकित्सा संकाय सदस्य, महाराष्ट्र आयुर्विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय को महाराष्ट्र आयुर्विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद का सदस्य निर्वाचित किया गया है ।
[No. V- 11013/5/2002 - ME (P - I )]
J. MAJUMDAR, Under Secy .
इसलिए अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य 10703 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006
का, आ. 4982.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स नैनो- टैक इंस्ट्रूमेंटेशन , 6/192 , प्रकाश नगर , बोडला रोड, शाहगंज , आगरा , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले ' एनटीएच ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नैनोटेक " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/235 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 58 )/2006]
आर माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii )) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006
S.O. 4982. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " NTH " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class II ) and with brand name " NANOTECH" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Nano -Tech Instrumentation, 6/192 , Parkash Nagar, Bodla Road, Shahganj , Agra, U.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/235;
NANOTEON
0000
The said model ( see the figure given above ) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval ( c) is 2 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of the same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 5,000 for 'e' value of Img to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with' e' value of 1 × 10% , 2×10k or 5x10%, k being the positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM -21 ( 58 )/2006 )
R. MATHUR BOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10705 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2006
का.आ. 4983.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्तमॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स नैनो- टैक इंस्ट्रूमेंटेशन , 6/192 , प्रकाश नगर , बोडला रोड , शाहगंज , आगरा , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले ' एनटीपी ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नैनोटैक" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/236 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2× 10 * या 5× 10* , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 58 )/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SBC . 3( ii)]
New Delhi , the 4th August, 2006
S.O. 4983.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
4
2 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self- indicating non - automatic , (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " NTP" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class III ) and with brand name " NANOTECH " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Nano - Tech . Instrumentation , 6/192, Parkash Nagar, Bodla Road, Shahganj , Agra, U.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/236;
1 The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100 g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to scaling the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machin for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of same scries with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and upto 5000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being the positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Mode has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM - 21 (58 )/2006]
R. MATHURBHOOTAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10707 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 24 नवम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 4984, केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स डॉक्टर बेलीराम एंड सन्स प्राइवेट लि. , नं. 3/17 , असफअली रोड , नई दिल्ली -110002 द्वारा विनिर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- IV ) वाले एनालॉग सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " साल्टर " है ( जिसें इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 06/ 325 , समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल एक मकैनिकल स्प्रिंग आधारित अस्वचालित ( व्यक्ति तोलन उपकरण ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 130 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है ।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , इंजीनियरिंग , डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा। और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 100 कि. ग्रा . से 200 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 131 )/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3916G1/06-2 10708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] New Delhi , the 24th November , 2006
S.O. 4984. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Mcasures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections ( 7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Person Weighing Machine ) with analogue indication of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class III ) and with brand name " SALTER" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Dr. Beli Ram & Sons Pvt. Ltd. , No. 3/17 , Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /06/325 ;
The said Model is a mechanical spring based non - automatic weighing instrument (Person Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 130 kg . and minium capacity of 5kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 500g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy design , circut diagram, working principle etc.
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 100kg . to 200kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the ragne of 100 to 1,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of Ix10%, 2x10 or 5x10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM-21 (131 )/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10709
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 24 नवम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4985.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डाक्टर बेलीराम एंड सन्स प्राइवेट लि. , नं. 3/17 , असफअली रोड , नई दिल्ली -110002 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( शिशु एवं बालक मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सालटर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 06/324 , समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( शिशु एवं बालक तोलन मशीन ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा है. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । यह उपकरण बैटरी पावर सप्लाई पर काम करता है । स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , इंजीनियरिंग , डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापान मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैंऔर " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 131 )/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]
New Delhi , the 24th November, 2006
S.O. 4985. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Baby cum Child Weighing Machine) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class III ) and with brand name " SALTER " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Dr. Beli Ram & Sons Pvt . Ltd. , No. 3/17, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/324;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Baby cum Child Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 20 kg . and minium capacity of 200g . The verification scale interval (c) is 10g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on battery power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy design , circut diagram , working principle etc.
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg. with verification scale interval ( n ) in the ragne of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with 'e' value of 1 × 10%, 2× 10k or 5× 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same princip.c, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM - 21 ( 131 ) /2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10711
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4986. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्ति शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स कीर्ति बिजनेस कार्पोरेशन , हाउस नं. 1222 , सेक्टर-7 अरबन एस्टेट, करनाल -132001 , हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च मथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " के बी एच " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " के बी सी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहां गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/533 , समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटोप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा है. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2x10 * या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (204)/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 29th November, 2006
S.O. 4986.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non -automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop Type ) with digital indication of " KBH " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - 11 ) and with brand name " KBC" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Kirti Business Corporation, House No. 1222 , Sector - 7 , Urban Estate, Karnal - 132001 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/533;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop Type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minium capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy design, circuit diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . and with no of verification scale interval (n ) in the ragne of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg . to 50mg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 m.g. or more and with 'e' value of 1 ×10k , 2× 10k or 5× 10% , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM - 21( 204)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology -10713 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 29 नवम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 4987.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स कीर्ति बिजनेस कार्पोरेशन , हाउस नं. 1222 , सेक्टर -7 अरबन एस्टेट, करनाल -132001 , हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " के बी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , स्वतः सूचक , अस्वचालित तोलम उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " के बी.सी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन विहन आई एन डी/09/06/534 , समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.गा है. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 किग्रा. सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आंधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है। :
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा।
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1× 10 , 2x10 * या 5× 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (204) /2006 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 10714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
New Delhi , the 29th November , 2006
S.O. 4987. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self in dicating non - automatic (Platform Type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " KBP " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " KBC" (herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s . Kirti Business Corporation, House No. 1222, Sector- 7 , Urban Estate, Karnal- 132001 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/534;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minium capacity of 4kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 200g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts, and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy design , circut diagram , working principle cte . before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Governinent hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and upto 5000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of Ix10%, 2 × 10k or 5× 10% , where k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 (204)/2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10715 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 29 नवम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4988.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एपलैब लिमिटेड , एपलैब हाउस ए/5 , वागले इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , थाणे -400604 द्वारा विनिर्मित " एस डब्ल्यूए डी ई एस- II - 22423 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एस डब्ल्यू ए डी ई एस - 11- हाई होस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 06/ 530 , समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रिोनिक फ्यूल डिस्पेंसर ( स्टैन्डर्ड ड्यूटी ) है जिसमें दो प्रोड्क्टस और दो होस सिस्टम लगे हैं । यह चार पिस्टन पोजिटिव डिस्पलेस्मेंट मीटरिंग यूनिट पर आधारित है । पम्प में दो नोजल लगे हैं तथा ओपशनल फीचर जैसे प्रिसेट , नोन प्रिसेट, इलैक्ट्रो मैकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर ( ई एम टी ) , इलैक्ट्रोनिक टोटेलाइजर , घनत्व प्रदर्श ( स्थिर प्रदर्श ) मूल्य प्रति लीटर ( स्थिर प्रदर्श ) प्रिन्टर फेसिलिटी के साथ लगे हैं । उक्त मॉडल की अधिकतम प्रवाह. दर प्रत्येक होस के लिये 45 लीटर प्रति मिनट तथा न्यूनतम प्रवाह दर 4 लीटर प्रति मिनट है । और इसका न्यूनतम प्रभाग 10 मि. लीटर है । उक्त मॉडल में उपदर्शन 6 डिजिट के द्वारा मूल्य के लिये रुपये में , 5 डिजिट के द्वारा मात्रा के लिये लीटर में (6 डजिट- ओपशनल ) , 4 डिजिट के द्वारा कीमत प्रति लीटर के लिये और 4 डिजिट के द्वारा घनत्व के लिये है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एलं सी डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उक्त मॉडल में मीटरिंग यूनिट के लिये कंवेनशनल मैकेनिकल केलिब्रेशन डिवाइस के अतिरिक्त आयतन केलिब्रेशन करने के लिये इलैक्ट्रोनिक डिवाइस लगी है जो इलैक्ट्रोनिक रजिस्टर असेंबली के अन्दर बनी हुई है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाईन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 206)/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3916GI /06-3 10716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 29th November , 2006
S.O. 4988. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name " SWADES - II - HIGH HOSE " of " SWADES - II - 22423 " series (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Aplab Limited, Aplab House , A/ 5, Wagle Industrial Estate , Thane -400604 Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/530;
The said Model is an Electronic Fuel Dispenser ( Standard Duty ) with two products and two hose systems . It is based on the 4 piston positive displacement metering unit. The pump consists of double nozzle and is provided with optional features like preset , non - preset , electro mechanical totalizer ( EMT ) , electronic totalizer , density display ( static display ) , Rate per litre ( static display ) with printer facility, having maximum flow rate 45 litre per minute for cach hose and minimum flow rate 4 litre per minute . The smallest division is 10 ml . It has indications of 6 digits for amount in Rupees , 5 digits for quantity in litres (6 digits - optional ) , 4 digits for rate per litre and 4 digits for density. The indications of the measurements are displayed on liquid crystal diode ( LCD ) Display . The said Model has provision of volume calibration by electronic device built into electronic register assembly , in addition to the conventional mechanical calibration device for metering unit . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to scaling the stamping plate , scaling shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy design , circut diagram, working principle ete . before or after sale .
[ F. No. WM- 21 ( 206 ) /2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10717 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
नई दिल्ली , 29 नवम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4989.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एपलैब लिमिटेड, एपलैब हाउस ए/5 , वागले इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , थाणे-400604 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित " एस डब्ल्यू ए डी ई एस- II - 22424 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एस डब्ल्यूए डी ई एस- II- हाई होस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/ 531 , समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रोनिक फ्यूल डिस्पेंसर ( हैवी ड्यूटी ) है जिसमें दो प्रोड्क्टस और दो होस सिस्टम लगे है । यह चार पिस्टन पोजिटिव डिस्पलेस्मेंट मीटरिंग यूनिट पर आधारित है । पम्प में दो नोजल लगे हैं तथा ओपशनल फीचर जैसे प्रिसेट, नोन फ़िसेट , इलैक्ट्रो मैकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर ( ई एम टी ) , इलैक्ट्रोनिक टोटेलाइजर , घनत्व प्रदर्श ( स्थिर प्रदर्श ) मूल्य प्रति लीटर ( स्थिर प्रदर्श ) प्रिन्टर फेसिलिटी के साथ लगे है । उक्त मॉडल की अधिकतम प्रवाह दर प्रत्येक होस के लिये 80 लीटर प्रति मिनट तथा न्यूनतम प्रवाह दर 8 लीटर प्रति मिनट है । और इसका न्यूनतम प्रभाग 10 मि. लीटर है । उक्त मॉडल में उपदर्शन 6 डिजिट के द्वारा मूल्य के लिये रुपये में , 5 डिजिट के द्वारा मात्रा के लिये लीटर में (6डिजिट- ओपशनल ) , 4 डिजिट के द्वारा कीमत प्रति लीटर के लिये और 4 डिजिट के द्वारा घनत्व के लिये है । लिकिव्ड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सीडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उक्त मॉडल में मीटरिंग यूनिट के लिये कंवेनशनल मैकेनिकल केलिब्रेशन डिवाइस के अतिरिक्त आयतन केलिब्रेशन करने के लिये इलैक्ट्रोनिक डिवाइस लगी है जो इलैक्ट्रिोनिक रजिस्टर असेंबली के अन्दर बनी हुई है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यव्रहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सकिट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 206 )/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
10718
New Delhi , the 29th November , 2006
S.O. 4989. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name " SWADES - II -HIGH HOSE " of " SWADES - II - 22424 " series ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Aplab Limited, Aplab House , A/ 5 , Wagle Industrial Estate , Thane - 400604, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /06/531 ;
SWADES II High Hose Heavy /Heavy Duty with Electro Mechanical Totaliser
(Two Product x Two Hose)
The said model is an Electronic Fuel Dispenser (Heavy Duty ) with two products and two hose systems . It is based on the 4 piston positive displacement metering unit . The pump consists of double nozzle and is provided with optional features like preset, non - preset , electro mechanical totalizer ( EMT) , electronic totalizer , density display ( static display ) , Rate per litre ( static display) with printer facility, having maximum flow rate 80 litre per minute for cach hose and minimum flow rate 8 litre per minute . The smallest division is 10ml . It has indication of 6 digits for amount in Rupees , 5 digits for quantity in litres (6 digits - optional ) , 4 digits for rate per litre and 4 digits for density . The indications of the measurements are displayed on liquid crystal diode (LCD ) Display . The said model has provision of volurne calibration by electronic device built into electronic register assembly , in addition to the conventional mechanical calibration device for metering unit . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternati current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy design , circut diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale .
[F. No. WM - 21 (206 )/2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10719
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4990.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एपलैब लिमिटेड, एपलैब हाउस ए/5 , बागले इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , थाणे-400 604 द्वारा विनिर्मित " एस डब्ल्यूए डी ई एस- II - 22425 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एस डब्ल्यूए डी ई एस- II- हाई होस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /06/ 535 , समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
SWADES II High Hose Standard/Heavy Duty with Electro Mechanical Totaliser
(Two Product x Two Hose)
Model No .: SWADESH II 22425
उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रिोनिक फ्यूल डिस्पेंसर ( स्टैन्डर्ड ड्यूटी और हैवी ड्यूटी ) है जिसमे दो प्रोड्क्टस और दो होस सिस्टम लगे हैं । यह चार पिस्टन पोजिटिव डिसपलेस्मेंट मीटरिंग यूनिट पर आधारित हैं । पम्प में दो नोजल लगे है तथा ओपशनल फीचर जैसे प्रिसेट , नोन प्रिसेट, इलैक्ट्रो मैकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर ( ई एम टी ) , इलैक्ट्रोनिक टोटेलाइजर, घनत्व प्रदर्श ( स्थिर प्रदर्श ) , मूल्य प्रति लीटर ( स्थिर प्रदर्श ) प्रिन्टर फेसिलिटी के साथ लगे हैं । उक्त माडल की अधिकतम प्रवाह दर प्रत्येक होस के लिये 45 लीटर प्रति मिनट और 80 लीटर प्रति मिनट क्रमानुसार तथा न्यूनतम प्रवाह दर् 4 लीटर प्रति मिनट और 8 लीटर प्रति मिनट क्रमानुसार है । और इसका न्यूनतम प्रभाग 10 मि. लीटर है । उक्त माडल में उपदर्शन 6 डिजिट के द्वारा मूल्य के लिये रुपये में, 5 डिजिट के द्वारा मात्रा के लिये लीटर में ( 6 डिजिट- ओपशनल ) , 4 डिजिट के द्वारा कीमत प्रति लीटर के लिये और 4 डिजिट के द्वारा घनत्व के लिये है । लिकिव्ड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उक्त मॉडेल में मीटरिंग यूनिट के लिये कंवेनशनल मैकेनिकल केलिब्रेशन डिवाइस के अतिरिक्त आयतन केलिब्रेशन करने के लिये इलैक्ट्रोनिक डिवाइस लगी है जो इलैक्ट्रिोनिक रजिस्टर असेंबली के अन्दर बनी हुई है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 206)/2006] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) )
New Delhi , the 29th November , 2006
S.O. 4990.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name "SWADES - II - HIGH HOSE " of " SWADES - II - 22425 " series (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s . Aplab Limited, Aplab House , A/ 5, Wagle Industrial Estate , Thanc - 400 604, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06 /535;
SWADES II High Hose Standard/ Heavy Duty with Electro Mechanical Totaliser (Two Product x Two Hose)
Model No .: SWADES II 22425
The said Model is an Electronic Fuel Dispenser ( Standard Duty and Heavy Duty) with two products and two hose systems . It is based on the 4 piston positive displacement metering unit . The pump consists of double nozzle and is provided with optional features like preset , non - preset , electro mechnical totalizer (EMT ) , electronic totalizer, density display ( static display) , Rate per litre ( stalic display) with printer facility , having maximum flow rate 45 and 80 litre per minute for each nozzle respectively and minimum flow rate 4 and 8 litre per minute respectively . The smallest division is 10ml . It has indications of 6 digits for amount in Rupees , 5 digits for quantity in litres (6 digits - optional ) , 4 digits for rate per litre and 4 digits for density . The indications of the measurements are displayed on liquid crystal diode ( LCD ) Display. The said model has provision of volume calibration by electronic device built into electronic register assembly , in addition to the conventional mechanical calibration device for metering unit . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circut diagram , working principle etc. before or after salc .
[F. No. WM- 21 (206)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10721 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ईदिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 4991.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रंगवाला स्टील इंडस्ट्रीज , नं. 1166 , पंकोरनाका , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थात ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " डब्ल्यू एम ए एच " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बेह्य मैट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहां गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/294 , समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;
उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित टेबलटाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जायेगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित/ परिवर्धित नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित माडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 * या 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फ्रा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (29)/2006] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] New Delhi , the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 4991. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type) with digital indication of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) of series "WMAH " and with brand name " WEIGH - MAT" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M / s . Rangwala Steel Industrics, No. 1166 , Pankornaka, Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/294;
PREMIUM COUNTER SCALE
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type) with a maximum capacity of 22kg and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy , design, circut diagram, working principle etc. , before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 5,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50mg and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10k or 5x10k where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM-21 (29) /2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10723
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 4992.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रंगवाला स्टील इंडस्ट्रीज , नं 1166 , पंकोरनाका , अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डब्ल्यूएम ए टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वेा मैट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्तमॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /06/ 295 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित टेबलटाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित/परिवर्धित नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल' के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (29 ) /2006 ]
आर माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3916 GI /064 10724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II SEC . 3( ii) )
New Delhi , the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 4992.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribea authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby insues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of to medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series "WMAT" andwith brand name "WEIGH - MAT" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/s . Rangwala Steel Industries, No. 1166 , Pankornaka, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/295;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 5 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg to 2g and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5 ×10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F.No. WM- 21 (29 )/2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10725 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्न : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
नईदिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 4993.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ! (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रंगवाला स्टील इंडस्ट्रीज , नं 1166 , पंकोरनाका, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डब्ल्यूएम एपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वेह्य मैट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात्उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/296 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
ACON
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित/परिवर्धित नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1× 10* , 2× 10 * या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 29 )/2006 ] आर माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10726
[PART H-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
New Delhi , the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 4993.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of . sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of Series " WMAP " and with brand name "WEIGHT- MAT" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . Rangwala Steel Industrics , No. 1166 , Pankornaka, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/296;
SCALE
BATT
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle, etc. , before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 1000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10% , 2x10 or 5× 10% , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F.No. WM-21 (29 )/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
10727 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 4994, केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स अम्पायर वैइंग सिस्टम्स प्रा. लि. , नं. 5/533 , गार्गों बिल्डिंग , शक्ति नगर इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, गुलार रोड , अलीगढ़ -202 001 , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एल ए डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " लैक्सस कोजी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/544 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाईन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1× 10 , 2× 10* या 5× 10%, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहै ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 113 ) /2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10728
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
New Delhi , the 30th November, 2006
S.O. 4994.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Weigh bridge type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series " LAW" and with brand name "LEXUS COZY " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), manufacturedby M/s . Empire Weighing Systems Pvt . Ltd. , No. 5/533 , Gargo Building, Shakti Nagar Industrial Area, Gular Road, Aligarh , Uttar Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/544;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge typc) with a maximum capacity of 50 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy , design, circuit diagram , working principle , etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 150 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 10k or 5x10% , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F.No. WM-21 (113)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10729
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 4995.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् 'यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और तथा बाट माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लिण्डबर्ग जैसन , लिण्ड्रेबर्ग एले , 28 , डी के-400 , रोसकिल्डे , डेनमार्क द्वारा विनिर्मित और भारत में मैसर्स शाहपुत्र ट्रेडिंग प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, संख्या 31 , पांचवा रोड , श्रीरामपुर, बंगलौर-560021 द्वारा विपणित बी सी एस श्रृंखला के स्वचालित लिकर मापक के मॉडल , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " टेप सिस्टम " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/532 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल 30 एम एल की प्रेसेट डिलवरी के लिए स्वचालित लिकर मापक है। उपकरण को बोतल के मुंह में डाला जाता है। बोतल और उपकरण को तब उलटा करके होल्डर एसेंबली में रखा जाता है । प्रत्येक होल्डर में एक प्रचालित लीवर होता है और सोलेनाइड एक्चुएटिंग कॉयल होती है । सभी होल्डरों को इलैक्ट्रिकल तार द्वारा एकल नियंत्रित यूनिट से जोड़ा जाता है । लीवर के प्रचालन से उपकरण इलैक्ट्रिकल नियंत्रण के तहत डिस्पेंस और पुनः भरण करता है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड प्रदर्श लीकर की डिलिवरी के बारे में संकत मुहैया करता है । तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है। उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 ( 12 ) द्वास प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत 60 ए एल तक की अधिकतम क्षमता और उसी मेक तथा श्रृंखला के स्वचालित लीकर मापक भी कवर होगा जो उसी निर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 94 )/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii)]
New Delhi , the 28th November , 2006
S.O. 4995.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Automatic Liquor Measuse of Series - BCS and with brand name "Tap Systems " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/ s Lindberg Jenson, Ledreborg Alle , 28 , DK- 4000 , Roskilde Denmark , and marketed in India by M/ s . Shahputra Trading Private Limited, No. 31 , 5th Main Road, Srirampuram, Bangalore-560021 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/532;
The said Model is a Automatic Liquor Measure for a preset delivery of 30 ml . The instrument is inserted into the neck of the bottle . The bottle and the instrument are then inverted and placed into holder assembly . Each holder has an operative lever and contains solenoid actuating coil. All holders are connected to a single controlled unit by electrical wiring . The operation of the lever causes the instrument to dispense and then refill under electrical control . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indication provides signal about delivery of the liquors . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the Automatic Liquor Measure of similar make and of same series with maximum capacity upto 60 ml manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured .
[F.No. WM-21 (94)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10731 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर, 2006
का. आ. 4996.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सेनसुई इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , 89/1 , भवानी पेथ , पुणे-411 042 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सेनसुई- कोन-डब्ल्यू बी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज कनवर्जन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सेनसुई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/537 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज कनवर्जन किट प्रकार ) है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है किउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि. ग्रा. या उसके अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 या 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या. शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 200 )/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3916GI/06-5 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10732
New Delhi , the 30thNovember , 2006
S.O. 4996. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( conversion kit for weighbridge ) with digital indication " SANSUI - CON -WEB" series belonging to medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SANSUI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Sansui Electronics Pvt . Ltd. , 89/1 , Bhawani Peth, Pune- 411042 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/537;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (conversion kit for weighbridge) with a maximum capacity of 40 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg . The verification scale interval (c) is 10 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg or more and with ' c' value of 1 × 10% , 2× 10 or 5 × 10% , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model have been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 (200)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10733 भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर, 2006
का. आ. 4997.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बार और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सेनसुई इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , 89/1 , भवामी पेथ , पुणे-411 042 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सेनसुई-कोन-पी एफ" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म कनवर्जन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सेनसुई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /06 /536 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म कनवर्जन किट प्रकार ) है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती हैं कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 ×10 , 2x10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 200 )/2006. ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
10734
New Delhi , the 30th November, 2006
S.O. 4997. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument with digital indication ( Conversion Kit for Platform ) with "SANSUI-CON- PF" series belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SANSUI " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Sansui Electronics Pvt . Ltd. , 89/1 , Bhawani Peth, Pune -411 042 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/06/536;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion Kit for Plateform) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 4 kg . The verification scale interval (c ) is 200 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and upto 5000 kg . with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg . or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5x10k , where k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model have been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 (200)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10735 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 4998. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स दिव्या स्केल मेनुफेक्चरिंग वर्क्स, बी -23 , मनोहर विला, निकोल नरोडा रोड , नया नरोडा, अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी सी सी-30 टी 5 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज कनवर्जन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " दिव्या " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/539 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज कनवर्जन किट प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन' नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि. ग्रा. या उसके अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2x10 या 5 × 10*, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (209 )/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10736
[PART II-SBC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
NewDelhi , the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 4998. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion Kit for Weighbridge ) with digital indication of "DCC-30T5" series belonging to medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DIVYA" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Divya Scale Mfg . Works , B -23 , Manohar Villa, Nikol Naroda Road, New Naroda, Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/539;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Conversion Kit for Weighbridge) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval ( c) is 5 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply .
In addition to scaling the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale.
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg . or more and with ' c' value of 1 × 10% , 2x10 or 5x10 % , where k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model have been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 (209)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10737 भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2006
का. आ. 4999.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मामक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मागक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स दिव्या स्केल मेनुफेकवरिंग वार्क्स, बी-23 , मनोहर विला , निकोल नरोडा रोड, नया नरोडा अहमदाबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग-111 ) बाले " डी एफ सी 30 टी 5 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " दिव्या" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/538 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति मेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( केब्रिज प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शतः प्रतिशत व्यक्कलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता हैं । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाईन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तन/ परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है किउक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के बैसे ही मेक, वथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि. ग्रा. याःउसके अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और "ई" मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5× 10%, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणांक या शून्य केसमतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (209 )/2006 ]
आर माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
NewDelhi , the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 4999. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (weighbridge type ) with digital indication " DFC- 30T5 " series belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class III ) and with brand name " DIVYA" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Divya Scale Mfg . Works , B -23 , Manohar Villa, Nikol Naroda Road , New Naroda, Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/538 .
Divya
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg or more and with ' e' value 1 × 10k , 2× 10k or 5× 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero rnanufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 (209)/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director Legal Metrology .
10739 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर, 2006
का. आ. 5000.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की सम्भावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सुपर वैइंग सिस्टम , 187- ए, हापुर रोड , गुरुद्वारे के पास , गाजियाबाद-201001 , उ० प्र० द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस.पी.टी. " श्रंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सुपर टेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/542 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण है इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाईन , सर्किट डायग्राम, निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उंसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिये 5000 से 50000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 (210) /2006.]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3916 G1 /066 10740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ]
New Delhi, the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 5000.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top Type ) with digital indication of " SPT" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name "SUPER TECH " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Super Weighing System, 187 -A, Hapur Road, Near Gurudwara, Ghaziabad- 201001 U.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 06/542;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type ) with a maximum capacity of 30 Kg . and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material, accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity 50 Kg . and with nuimber of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of img to 50mg and with number of verification scale nterval ( n ) in the raonge of 5000 to 50,000 ' e ' value for value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10k or 5x10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F.No. WM- 21 ( 210 )/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director Legal Metrology 10741 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5001. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्तरिपोर्ट, में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और भाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सुपर बैइंग सिस्टम , 187 - ए , हापुड रोड , गुरूद्वारे के पास , गाजियाबाद-201001 , उ. प्र. द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस पी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सुपर टेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/543 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/ परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा।
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 % , 2× 10 * या 5× 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 210 )/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) )
New Delhi , the 30th November , 2006
S.O. 5001. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " SPP " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class II ) and with brand name " SUPER TECH " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Super Weighing System, 187 - A, Hapur Road, Near Gurudwara, Ghaziabad - 201001 , U.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/06/543;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 5 kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 100 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circuit diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar ınake , and performance and of same series with maximum capacity range above 50 kg . and up to 5000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 50 mg . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2x10 or 5x10% , k being the positive or nagative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design , accuracy and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 210) /2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10743 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5002.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स अलेक्जेंडरा स्केल क. , नं. 1115/1 , पंकोरनाका, अहमदाबाद-1 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए एस डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ए एस सी ओ " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/ 393 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसको शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्टज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अविरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2x10 या 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 92 )/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II -SBC. 3( ii))
New Delhi , the 1st December , 2006
S.O. 5002.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Weigh ridge type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class III ) of scries " ASW " and with brand name " ASCO" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Alexandra Scale Co., No. 1115/1 , Pankornaka , Ahmedabad- 1 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/06/393;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval ( c ) is 5 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circut diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg . or more and with ' c' value of 1 × 10k, 2x10% or 5 × 10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (92)/2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10745 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5003.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और (8 ) द्वारा प्रदश शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स वी.एम. इंडस्ट्रीज , एस. टी. बस स्टैंड के पास , महुवा रोड , सावरकुंडला-364515 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " वी एम आई " श्रृंखला के अनालोग सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लटकाने वाले स्प्रिंग बैलेंस ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डी वी आई के " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिहन आई एन डी/09/06/ 546 , समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) स्प्रिंग आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. है । परिणाम प्रदर्शित करने के लिये डायल पर एक पाइंटर लगा है। स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/परिवर्धत नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 5 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 500 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 152 )/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006
S.O. 5003.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non -automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication (Hanging type spring Balance ) of " VMI " series of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DVIK " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . V.M. Industries , Near S.T. Bus Stand, Mahuva Road, Savarkundla- 364515, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/546;
The said Model ( see the figure given below) is a spring based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 100kg . and minimum capacity of 5 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 500 g . The results of measurement are indicated by the pointer on dial .
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy design, circut diagram, working principle etc. before or after sale .
Further, în exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of same make , accuracy and performence of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 5kg . to 500 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' c' value of 1 × 10k , 2× 10k or 5x10%, ' k' being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approved said Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM - 21 ( 152 )/2006]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 10747 भारत का राजपत्न : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9; 1928,
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5004, -केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मागक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हुण्डई इलैक्ट्रानिक बेट इंस्ट्रूमेंट, 144 , कामगार नगर, मन्दनवन , नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -11 ) वाले " एच टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हुण्डई " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/414 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । जो अंकक सूचन सहित भार सेल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 11 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और उक्तमॉडल को उसकी बिक्री से पूर्व अथवा बाद में सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिा 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और "ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5 × 10* , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 130)/2006]
आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3916GI/06-7 10748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii))
New Delhi , the 19th December , 2006
S.O. 5004. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Mcasures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
▼ Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of High accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) of series- " HTT " and with brand name "HUND AI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Hundai Electronic Weight Instrument, 144 , Kamgar Nagar , Nandanvan , Nagpur , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/414;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity of 11kg and minimum capacity of 50 g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 1g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing is done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram , working principle ctc . before or after sale .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50 mg . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e' value 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5x10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM - 21 ( 130)/2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology مر.
10749 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5005.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मामक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;
अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हुण्डई इलैक्ट्रानिक बेट इंस्ट्रूमेंट , 144 , कामगार नगर, नन्दनवन , नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एच पी एफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हुण्डई " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/415 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधि कतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है जो अंकक सूचन सहित भार सेल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।
स्टॉम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और उक्तमॉडल को उसकी बिक्री से पूर्व अथवा बाद में सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादनं सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा।
और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 50,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2x10 या 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 130 )/2006 ]
आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10750
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSAY, 1928
New Delhi , the 19th December , 2006
S.O. 5005. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central- Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series- " HPF " and with brand name " HUNDAI " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Hundai Electronic Weight Instrument , 144 , Kamgar Nagar, Nandanvan , Nagpur , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/415;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 100 g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing is done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circuit , diagram , working principle cte . before or after sale .
Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and upto 5000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10% , 2× 10k, or 5 × 10%, k. being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM-21 ( 130 )/2006 ]
R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 10751 भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
3 ( ii ) ]
[ भाग II-खण्ड
(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ) नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5006. - 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 नीथे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि
संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
क्रम संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
27 नवम्बर, 2006
3 मार्च , 2006
1 .
आई एस 2418 ( भाग 2 ) : 1977 स्पेशिफिकेशन फोर टेबोलर फोलोरसेंट लैमप फोर सामान्य लाईटिंग सेवाएँ भागः 2 मानक लैमप डाटा शीट
(पहला पुनरीक्षण)
इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं.: ईटी 23/टी-21 ]
पी. के. मुखर्जी , वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) NewDelhi , the 15th December , 2006
S.O. 5006. In pursuance of clause (b ) ofSub- rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Burcau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl .
Date from which the Amendment shall have effect
No. & year of the
Amendment
No. & Year of the Indian Standards
No.
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
27 November, 2006
3March,2006
J.
IS2418 (Part 2) : 1977 Specification for Tubular Fluorescent Lamps for General Lighting Service: Part 2 Standard Lamp Data Sheets
(First Revision)
Copy of this Amendment are available with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[No. ET 23/T-21 ]
P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc . 'F' . & Head (Elec . Technical)
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5007.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि
क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30-11-2006
1. आई एस 15703 : 2006/ आइएसओ 4498 : 2005- कठोर धातुओं को छोड़कर 10752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 2
सिंटरित धातु सामग्रियां आभासी कठोरता एवं सूक्ष्म कठोरता ज्ञात करना
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 , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिकी हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं.: एमटीडी 254/टी-77]
डा. ( श्रीमति) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)
New Delhi , the 18th December, 2006
S.O. 5007. In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987. the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Date of Established SI . No.
No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established
No.& year of Indian Standards , if any Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
30-11-2006
IS15703 : 2006/ISO 4498 : 2005 Sintered metal materials, excluding hardmetals -Determination of app- rent hardness and microhardness
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standars , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[No. MTD 254/T -277 ]
Dr. (Mrs. ) SNEH BHATLA, Scientist ' F. ' & Head (Met . Engg)
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5008. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -
अनुसूची
स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या
स्थापित तिथि
क्रम संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
30 नवम्बर, 2006
आई एस 15725 : 2006 स्वचल टायर- क्यूरिंग आवरण-अतप्त प्रक्रिया
30नवम्बर, 2006
2. आई एस 15730 : 2006 दुपहिया और तिपहिया वाहनों के लिए एसी फलेशर
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं.: टीईडी/जी-16]
राकेश कुमार , वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी) 10753 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपन्न : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928 NewDelhi , the20th December, 2006
S.O. 5008.- In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :
SCHEDULE
Date of Established
No. Year & title ofthe Indian Standards Established
Sl. No.
No. & year of Indian Standards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30Nov.,2006
1. IS 15725 : 2006 Automotive Tyres- tyre Curing Envelop-Cold Process
30 Nov. , 2006
2. IS 15730: 2006 ac Flashers for 2 and 3 wheelers
Copy of this Standard is are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standars , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also BranchOffices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubanesh war , Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[No. TED/G- 16]
RAKESH KUMAR, Scientist ' F ' . & Head (Transport Engg)
नई दिल्ली , 20 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5009.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि
संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
क्रम संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
29दिसम्बर, 2006
1.
संशोधन संख्या 1 , दिसम्बर, 2006
आई एस 733 : 1983- सामान्य इंजीनियरी प्रयोजनों के लिए पिटवाँ ऐल्युमिनियम एवं ऐल्युमिनियम मिश्रधातु के सरीये, छड़ें एवं सेक्शन-विशिष्ट
(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
इन भारतीय 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, कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, 'नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. एमटीडी 7/टी-15 ]
डा. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)
New Delhi , the 20th December, 2006
S.O. 5009. In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub- rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
10754
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
SCHEDULE
Date from which theAmendment shall have effect
Sl. No.
No.& yearofthe
Amendment
No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards
(2)
(4)
(1)
(3)
1.
29December, 2006
IS 733 : 1983-Specification for
Amendment No. 1
December,2006
Wrought Aluminium and Aluminium Alloy Bars , Rods and Sections (For General Engineering Purposes)
(Third Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahınedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .
[No. MTD 7 /T- 15 ]
Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA , Sc . 'F. ' & Head ( MTD)
नई दिल्ली , 20 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5010.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधि सूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गये हैं:-
अनुसूची
कम
टिप्पणी
रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या
और वर्ष
संख्या
भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
आई एस : 15686 : 2006 1.
का.आ. 1525
दिनांक: 2-6-90
आई एस 6065 ( भाग 1 ) : 1985 नदी घाटी परियोजनाओं के लिए भूवैज्ञानिक और भूतकनीकी मानचित्रों को तैयार करने की अनुशंसाएँ भाग ।
स्केल
(प्रथम पुरीक्षण)
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. : डब्लूआर डी 5 /टी-8 ]
ए.एम. डेविड , मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. ' ई '. एवं निदेशक ( जल संसाधन विभाग )
NewDelhi , the 20th December , 2006
S.O. 5010.-In pursuancesuance of clause (b) of Sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is , hereby notified that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .
SCHEDULE
SI .
Remarks
No. & Year of the
No. Indian Standards Cancelled
S.O. No. & Date published in theGazette of India Part - II , Section-3 , Sub- section (ii)
(1) (2)
(4)
(3)
1. IS6065 (Part 1) : 1985
S.O. 1525
dated 2-6-90
Superseded by IS15686: 2006
Recommendations for the Preparation ofGeological and Geotechnical Maps for River Valley Project : Part 1 Scales (First Revision) 10755
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Copies ofthisAmendment are available with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .
[No. WRD 5/T -8 ]
A.M. DAVID , Sc . ' E' , Director (Water Resources Deptt. )
नई दिल्ली , 27 दिसम्बर, 2006
का, आ. 5011.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम, 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथिः
क्रम संख्या
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
31दिसम्बर , 2006
1.
संशोधन संख्या नं. 2,
अक्तूबर , 2006
आई एस 14724 : 1999 जल परिशोधक यंत्र-पराबैंगनी रोगाणुनाशक सहित- विशिष्टि
इस 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 , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सीएचडी 13/आई एस-14724]
डा. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञा. ' एफ', निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )
New Delhi , the 27th December, 2006
S.O. 5011. In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub- rule ( 1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:
SCHEDULE
SI .
Date from which the Amendment shall have effect
No. & year of the
Amendment
No,& Year ofthe Indian Standards
No.
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
31 December, 2006
1.
AmendmentNo. 2 ,
October, 2006
IS 14724: 1999 Water Purifiers with Ultravoilet Disinfection- Specification
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[No. CHD/ 13 /IS- 14724]
Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Sc . 'F ' . Director & Head (Chemical )
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5012. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-
3916G1/06-8 10756
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि
क्रम संख्या
स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
31अक्तूबर , 2006
1 . आई एस 2012 : 2006 रेड फॉस्फोरस त्रिशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 26/आई एस 2012]
डा. यू.सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )
New Delhi , the 27th December, 2006 S.O. 5012.-In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub - rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Burcau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
SI. No. & Year of the
Date of Established
No.& year of Indian
No. Indian Standards Eastablished
Standards , if any Superseded
by the New Indian Standard
( 1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
31 October, 2006
IS 2012: 2006 Red Phosphours- Specification
(First Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 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. CHD 26/IS 2012 ]
Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Sc . 'F. ' Director & Head ( Chemical)
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5013.- 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 जिनं भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि
स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या
क्रम संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक.
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
31अक्तूबर , 2006
1. आई एस 3025 ( भाग 62 ) : 2006. जल और अपशिष्ट जल के नमूने लेने तथा परीक्षण ( भौतिक एवं रसायनिक) की पद्धतियाँ भाग 62 टेनिंस (प्रथम पुनरीक्षण) 10757 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 32/आई एस 3025 भाग ( 2) ]
डा. यू.सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)
New Delhi , the 27th December, 2006
S.O. 5013.-In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rules (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-
SCHEDULE
Date of Established
No. & Year of the
SI . No. Indian Standards Eastablished
No. & year of Indian Standards, if any Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(4)
(3)
(1)
(2)
1.
31 October, 2006
IS3025 (Part 62): 2006
Methods of Sampling and Test (Physical and Chemical ) for Water and Wastewater Part 62 Tannins .. (First Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[No.: CHD 32/IS 3025 ( Part 62) ]
Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Sc . 'F ' . Director & Head (Chemical)
नई दिल्ली , 27 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5014.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि
क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या, संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
30नवम्बर , 2006
1 . आई एस 5182 ( भाग 6) : 2006 वायु प्रदूषण मापने की पद्धति भाग 6 नाइट्रोजन के ऑक्साइड (पहला पुनरीक्षण )
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं.: सी एच डी 32 /आई एस 5182 ( भाग )
डा. यू.सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन ) 10758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] New Delhi , the 27th December , 2006
S.O. 5014.- In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub-rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Date of Established
SI. No.
No. & year of the Indian Standard Eastablished
No.& year of Indian Standards , if any Superseded by the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(4)
(3)
1.
30November , 2006
IS 5182 ( Part 6 ) : 2006 Methods for Measurement of AirPollution Part 6 Oxides of Nitrogen
(First Revision)
Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standars , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .
[No.: CHD 32/IS 5182 (Part 6 ) ]
Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Sc . ' F' . Director & Head ( Chemical)
नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर, 2006
का. आ. 5015.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:
अनुसूची
क्रम
स्थापित तिथि
स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या ,
संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय गानक अथवा मानकों , यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
1. आई एस 5182 ( भाग 11 ) : 2006
30 सितम्बर, 2006
वायु प्रदूषण मापन की पद्धतियाँ
भाग 11 बैंजीन , टॉल्यूनंन एवं जाइलीन
(बी टी एक्स)
(दूसर! पुनरीक्षण)
इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 32/आई एस 5182 ( भाग 11 ) ]
डा. यू.सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन ) NewDelhi , the 27th December, 2006
S.O. 5015. In pursuance of clause (b ) of Sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule bereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE No. & year ofthe
Indian Standard Eastablished
SI . No.
No.& year of Indian Standards, if any Superseded bythe New Indian Standard
(3) (1)
(2)
1. IS5182(Part 11): 2006 Methods for Measurement of Air Pollution Part 11 Benzene , Toluene and Xylene (BTX) (First Revision)
10759 Date of Established
(4)
30 September, 2006
Copy of this Standard available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shsh ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.
[No. CHD 32/IS 5182 (Part 11 ) ]
Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Sc . ' F' . Director & Head (Chemical)
पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5016. - जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि नुमलीगढ़ रिफाइनरी लिमिटेड को प्राकृतिक गैस आपूर्ति के लिये दुलियाजान से नुमलीगढ़ जिला गोलाघाट तक आसाम गैस कम्पनी लिमिटेड, दुलियाजान द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछायी जानी चाहिए ।
और अतः यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी लाइनों को बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये इसके साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करना आवश्यक है ।
अतः अब पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार काअर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का अपना आशय एतदद्वारा घोषित करती है ।
उक्त भूति में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये आपत्ति और सुझाव सक्षम अधिकारी नामतः जिला उपायुक्त शिवसागर , असम को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से 21 दिनों के भीतर कर सकता है ।
और ऐसी आपत्ति और सुझाव देने वाला हर व्यक्ति यह भी बताएगा कि क्या वह अपनी सुनवाई व्यक्तिगत रूप से चाहता है अथवा किसी विधि व्यवसायी के माध्यम से ।
अनुसूची जिलाः शिवसागर
मौजा
पट्टा नं.
सर्कल
गांव का नाम
क्रम सं
(5)
(4)
(3)
(1) ( 2)
मोहमारा
राज्य : असम
क्षेत्रफल
दाग नं.
लुसा
बीघा कट्य
(9)
(8)
(7)
(6)
0
9
0
299
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 101
1. मोरान चांगमाई
खालोइघो- घोरा
9
1
0
303
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 141
गांव
सरकार
4
0
0
304
5
1
0
305
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 75
19
I
0
445
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 45
1
13
0
446
मियादी मटूटा नं. 45
13
1
0
447
मियादी पट्टा नं. 45
10760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
(1 ) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5) मोरान चांगमाई
मोहमारा खालोइघो
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] (6) (7) (8) (9)
0
448
मियादी पट्टा नं. 142
गांव
-घोरा
0
14 461
0
मियादी पट्ा नं. 59
2
11
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 149
कुल:
2.
सरकार सेसापुखरी हावी मोहमारा खालोइघो-
गांव
-घोरा
611
1
11
2
3
8 27
0
1
1 30
मियादी पट्टा नं. 51
0
1
14 35
0
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 66
सरकार
सरकार
9 41
0
7
0
42
0
3
و 44
0
2
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 31
14 45
0
0.
मियादी पट्टा नं. 9
7 47
0
6
मियादी पट्टा नं. 9
0
48
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 68
7
0
49
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 68
0
15
0
50
मियादी पट्टा नं. 31
0
2
3 >
51
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 31
एकासना पन्ना
0
10 57
0
0 10 59
मियादी पट्टा नं. 85
सरकार
सरकार
0
7
0
61
0
0
5 62
0
8
0
115
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 5
सरकार
एकासना पत्ता
1 19 315
4
1 11 328
0
15
0
335
मियादी पट्टा नं. 43
0
0
6 338
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 29
0 13 341
मियादी पट्टा नं. 21
0
1
9 344
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं, 23
मियादी पट्टा नं.
0
0
7 346
0
0
8
16 348
0
0
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 21
कुल:
3.
काकारामारा मोहमारा मोहमारा
9
1
16 10
0
मियादी पट्य नं. 76
बगीचा भाग-2
1
8 12
मियादी पट्टा नं. 76
0
1
19 13
0
1
6
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 76
14
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 76
एकासना
0
9 39
0
0
15 44
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
9
0
45
मियादी पट्टा नं. 25
0
1
14 46
मियादी पट्टा नं. 42
0
0
12 47
0
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 25
सरकार
सरकार
1
6 93
0
6
0
395
0
6
0
409
मियादी पट्टा नं. 3
0
0
10 410
0
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 25
कुल:
0
16
2
0
16 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(5)
(3)
(4)
(2)
( 1)
4.
मोहमारा खालोइघो-
10761 (7) (8) (9) (6)
7
3
0
568
मियादी पट्टा नं. 142
मोउतगांव
घोरा
0
1
857
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 30
भाग-2
2
0
0
588
मियादी पट्टा नं. 173
11
0
3
678
मियादी पट्टा नं. 30
9
1
1
679
मियादी पट्टा नं. 173
2
1
0
680
मियादी पट्टा नं, 114
कुल:
बोकाता
5. डिमौ
बोरबीलगांव
11
0
4
0
14 463
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 48
एकासना भाग-2
एकासना
11
0
2
469
15
0
15
0
470
15
2
0
471
मियादी पट्टा नं. 48
एकासना
कुल:
0
4
0
477
4 19
1
16
6
68
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 78
6. कुजीवली नाजिरा हंरारा
हावी गांव
1
1
0
69
मियादी पट्टा नं. 7
3
0
0
70
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
सरकार
13
0
0
80
7
0
0
265
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
15
0
0
268
मियादी पट्टा नं. 7
1
3 278
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 82
5
0
0
279
मियादी पट्टा नं. 18
10
2
0
280
मियादी पट्टा नं. 18
15
0
0
281
मियादी पट्टा नं. 82
3
0
0
283
मियादी पट्टा नं. 82
कुल:
सरकार
जोकटोली
7. मोथायासिगा नाजिरा
गाँव
1
2
11
2
0
944
17
1
946
0
एकसना पट्टा
सरकार
1
0
1
947
8
1
0
955
एकसना पट्टा
2
0
0
956
मियादी पट्टा नं. 22
15
0
0
1001
मियादी पट्टा नं. 250
2
0
0
1332
मियादी पट्टा नं. 94
सरकार
सरकार
कुल:
हँसरा
नाजिरा
मोयामरागाँव
0
0
5 1395
0
1
0
1491
2 12
1
0
1
0 42
मियादी पट्टा नं . 50
8.
कुल:
0
0
1
0
0
17 141
मियादी पट्टा नं. 77
9.
बेटबाड़ी
डिमोवालगाँव शिवसागर
2
0
0
142
मियादी पट्टा नं. 77
1
17
0
144
मियादी पट्टा नं. 5
0
0
1
145
मियादी पट्टा नं. 37
10762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5) 9. 'डिमोवालगाँव
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (6)
(7)
(9)
(8)
147
0
2
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 32
बेटबाड़ी
शिवसागर
4 148
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 32
0
150
0
17
मियादी पट्टा नं. 47
151
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 47
152
0
6
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 79
153
0
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 119
154
1
4
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
155
0
0
6
मियादी पट्टा नं. 79
156
0
2
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 4
157
0
2
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
159
0
0
19
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
160
0
14
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
0
161
0
2
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
162
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
1
163
4
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
164
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 11
9 215
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
13 737
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
कुल:
10. खेलुवा गाँव
बेटबाड़ी
शिवसागर
8
3
0
5 182
0
1
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 146
962
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 100
सरकार
11 965
0
2
8 966
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 180
11 968
0
9
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
2
973
19
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 100
974
0
1
17
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
सरकार
सरकार
कुल:
11. चावडांगगाँव आमगुड़ी गोधूलिबजार 986
0
2
0 987
0
1
6
3
0
4 20
0
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 140
21
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 201
0
11 22
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 50
0
5 30
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 196
15 31
0
4
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 140
32
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 210
1
0 33
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 140
0
15 36
0
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 251
कुल:
12.
2
3
11 72
मियादी पट्टा नं. 137
आमगुड़ी होलूगुरी
कुकुरासुआ गाँव
0
2
13 73
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 86
19
0
1232
मियादी पट्टा नं. 70
कुल:
0
5
1
0
17 10763
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(5)
(3)
(4)
( 1) (2)
13.
(9) (6) (7) (8)
0
0
5 414
मियादी पट्टा नं. 284
होलूगुरी
सेनसुआ गाँव आमगुड़ी
13
1
0
416
मियादी पट्टा नं. 225
I
8. 417
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 222
0
0
1 418
मियादी पट्टा नं. 122
0
12 421
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 68
4
0
0 422
मियादी पट्टा नं. 284
4
0
5 424
मियादी पट्टा नं. 3
0
12 429
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 64
4
0
1 1079
मियादी पट्टा नं. 2
4
0
0
1220
मियादी पट्टा नं. 344
9
0
0 1222
मियादी पट्टा नं. 344
5
0 1227
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 344
कुल:
3
1
2
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/69/2006/ ओ.एन.जी.डी.- III ]
एम. मार्टिन , अवर सचिव
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
NewDelhi , the 28th December , 2006
S.O. 5016. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necesssary for supply of natural gas to Numoligarh Refinery Limited ( NRL) in the district ofGolaghat, Assam, pipeline should be laid from Duliajan to Numoligarh byAssamGas Company Limited, Duliajan.
And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in Land described in the schedule annexed hereto.
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- Section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum Pipeline (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 said land may within 21 days from the date of this notification send objections and suggestions to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the competent authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar District, Sivasagar , Assam.
And every person making such objections and suggestions may also state whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practitioner .
SCHEDULE !
District: Sivasagar
PattaNo.
Mouza
Name ofVillage Circle
SI . No.
(5) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
1.
Mahmora Khaloighogora P.P. No. 101
Moran Changmai
State: Assam DagNo.
AREA K
LRemark
B
(7) (8) (9) ( 10) (6)
9
0
0
299
9
0
1
303
P.P. No. 141
Gaon
0
4
0
304
Waste land
P.P. No. 75
P.P. No. 45
P.P. No. 45
P.P. No. 45
3916GI/06-9
1
5
0
305
19
0
1
445
13
1
0
446
13
0
I
447 10764
[PART II-SHC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9, 1928
(1)
(2)
(3)
(7)
(4)
(5)
(8) (9) ( 10)
(6)
448
1.
0
0
14 Moran Changmai Mahmora Khaloighogóra P.P. No. 142
461
0
2
11
P.P. No. 59
gaon
1
P.P. No.149
0
11
611
2
3
8
TotalArea:
2.
1
27
1
0
Sessapukhuri Mahmora
Waste land
Khaloighogora
14
1
30
0
havi gaon
P.P. No. 51
35
0
3
9
P.P. No. 66
0
41
7
Waste land
0
42
waste land
3
0
9
44
0
2
14
P.P. No. 31
0
7
45
0
P.P. No. 9
0
6
47
P.P. No. 9
0
0
48
0
7
P.P. No. 68
49
0
0
15
P.P. No. 68
0
3
50
2
P.P. No. 31
0
51
10
P.P. No. 31
0
0
0
10
Annual
57
7
59
0
0
P.P.No. 85
61
0
0
Waste land
5
8
62
0
0
Waste land
0
1
P.P. No. 5
115
19
1
11
Waste land
315
4
328
0
Annual
15
0
0
P.P. No. 43
335
0
6
338
0
P.P. No. 29
0
13
P.P. No. 21
341
0
9
1
0
0
7
P.P. No. 23
344
P.P. No.
346
0
0
8
16
348
0
0
P.P. No. 21
9
16
1
Total Area:
3. Kakaramara Mahmora Mahmora
10
0
1
8
P.P. No. 76
12
0
0
P.P. No. 76
19 Bigacha P - II
P.P. No. 76
13
0
1
6
14
P.P. No. 76
9
0
0
Annual
39
0
0
15
0
0
P.P. No. 61
44
9
45
1
P.P. No. 25
0
14
P.P. No. 42
46
0
0
12
47
P.P. No. 25
0
1
6
93
6
0
0
Waste Land
0
395
0
Waste Land
6
P.P. No. 3
409
0
0
10
P.P. No. 25
410
0
0
16
2
0
16
TotalArea:
10765 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(9)
(8)
(7)
(6)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
3
7
0
568
4.
P.P. No. 142
Khaloighogora.
Mahmora
Mout gaon P- II
0
1
1
587
P.P. No. 30
2
0
0
588
P.P. No. 173
11
3
0
678
P.P. No. 30
9
1
1
679
P.P. No. 173
2
0
1
680
P.P. No. 114
11
0
4
TotalArea:
14
463
0
3
P.P. No. 48
5. Borbil gaon Demow Bokota
11
2
0
469
Annual
15
0
0
470
Annual
15
2
0
471
P.P. No.48
4
0
0
477
Annual
4
19
1
TotalArea:
6
0
16
68
P.P. No.78
6. KujibaliHavi gaon Nazira Hansara
1
0.
1
P.P. No. 7
3
0
0
70
P.P. No. 61.
13
0
0
80
Waste land
7
0
0
265
P.P. No. 61
0
15
268
0
P.P. No. 7
3
1
278
0
P.P. No. 82
5
0
0
279
P.P. No. 18
10
0
2
280
P.P. No. 18
0
0
15
281
P.P. No. 82
0
3
0
283
P.P. No. 82
11
2
1
TotalArea:
2
0
1
944
Waste land
7. Mothayasiga gaon Nazira Jouktoli
17
0
946
1
Annual
1
0
1
947
Waste land
8
1
0
Annual
955
2
0
0
956
P.P. No. 22
15
0
0
1001
P.P. No. 250
2
0
0
1332
P.P. No. 94
0
5
0
1395
Waste land
0
1
0
1491
Waste land
1
2
12
TotalArea:
0
0
1
42
P.P. No. 50
8. Moiramora gaon Nazira Hansara
0
0
1
Total Area:
0
0
17
141
P.P. No. 77
9. Demowal gaon Sivasagar Batbari
2
0
0
142
P.P. No. 77
0
17
1
144
P.P. No. 5 10766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8 ) (9 ) 9. Demowal gaon
Batbari
Sivasagar
145
P.P. No. 37
0
1
0
P.P. No. 32
147
0
0
2
0
P.P. No. 32
148
4
1
150
0
P.P. No. 47
0
17
0
151
P.P. No. 47
0
5
0
P.P. No. 79
152
0
6
153
0
P.P. No. 119
0
10
154
0
P.P. No. 90
1
4
0
P.P. No. 79
155
0
6
156
0
P.P. No. 4
0
2
0
157
P.P. No. 90
0
2
0
159
P.P. No. 90
0
19
0
160
P.P. No. 90
0
14
0
P.P. No. 90
161
0
2
162
P.P. No. 90
0
2
1
P.P. No. 90
163
0
1
164
P.P. No. 11
0
1
49
215
P.P. No. 90
0
0
13
P.P. No. 90
737
0
0
8
3
TotalArea:
0
5
182
0
1
P.P. No. 146
10. Kheluwa gaon Sivasagar Batbari
3
962
P.P. No. 100
2
0
11
Waste land
965
0
2
8
P.P. No.180
966
0
0
11
9
P.P. No. 61
0
968
0
973
0
2
P.P. No. 100
19
0
P.P. No. 61
974
17
1
Waste land
986
0
2
0
Waste land
987
0
1
6
Total Area:
3
0
5
P.P. No. 140
20
0
0
11. Chawdang gaon Amguri Gadhulibazar
10
21
P.P. No. 201
0
11
0
P.P. No. 50
0
0
22
5
P.P. No. 196
0
0
30
15
31
P.P. No. 140
0
4
5
P.P. No. 210
32
1
1
0
P.P. No. 140
33
0
0
15
36
P.P. No. 251
0
0
10
TotalArea:
2
3
11
P.P. No. 137
72
0
2
13 12. Kukurasuwa gaon Amguri Hologuri
P.P. No. 86
73
0
2
19
P.P. No. 70
0
1232
0
5
TotalArea:
1
0
17 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
10767
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
(7) (8) (9) (6)
(5)
414
0
0
5 P.P. No. 284
13.
Hologuri Sensuwa gaon Amguri
13
0
1
416
P.P. No. 225
8
0
1
417
P.P. No. 222
1
0
0 418
P.P. No. 122
12
0
1
421
P.P. No. 68
4
0
0
422
P.P. No. 284
5
4
0
424
P.P. No. 3
0
12 429
0
P.P. No. 64
4
1
1079
0
P.P. No. 2
4
0
0
1220
P.P. No. 344
9
0
0
1222
P.P. No. 344
5
0
0
1227
P.P. No. 344
1
2
3
TotalArea:
[F.No.O- 12016/69/2006/ONGD- III ] M. MARTIN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5017.-जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि नुमलीगढ़ रिफाइनरी लिमिटेड को प्राकृतिक गैस आपूर्ति के लिये दुलियाजांन से नुमलीगढ़ जिला गोलाघाट तक आसाम गैस कम्पनी लिमिटेड , दुलियाजान द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछायी जानी चाहिए ।
और अतः यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी लाइनों को बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये इसके साथ उपबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करना आवश्यक है ।
अतः अब पेट्रोलियम 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का अपना आशय एतद्वारा घोषित करती है ।
उक्त भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये आपत्ति और सुझाव सक्षम अधिकारी नामतः जिला उपायुक्त जोरहाट, असम को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से 21 दिनों के भीतर कर सकता है ।
और ऐसी आपत्ति और सुझाव देने वाला हर व्यक्ति यह भी बताएगा कि क्या वह अपनी सुनवाई व्यक्तिगत रूप से चाहता है अथवा किसी विधि व्यवसायी के माध्यम से ।
जिलाः जोरहाट
मौजा
सर्कल
गांव का नाम
क्रम सं
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
लहिंग 1. चेतियागांव
टियोक
अनुसूची
राज्य : असम दाग नं.
पट्टा नं.
बीघा
लुसा
क्षेत्रफल कट्य
(6)
(7) (8) (9) (5)
0
13 83
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 86
0
10
2
88
मियादी पट्टा नं. 120
12
0
89
4
मियादी पट्टा नं. 120
2
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 120 90
3
0
0
99
मियादी पट्टा नं. 209
2
2
0
100
मियादी पट्टा नं. 135
0
11
0
101
मियादी पट्टा नं. 30
10768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( іі )) (1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(8) (9)
(6) (7)
चेतिया गांव
टियोक लहिंग
102
1
4
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 86
0
1
3
111
मियादी पट्टा नं. 102
112
0
0 15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 27
0
1
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 120
113
0
7
सरकार
1265
0
3
5
0
कुल:
2.
चारीगाँव
0
2
579
18
मियादी पट्टा नं. 122
1 नं. बामुन गाँव (भाग 1 )
584
0
3
13 जोरहाट (पूर्व)
मियादी पट्टा नं. 212
0
10
1
643
मियादी पट्टा नं. 175
0
0
10
651
मियादी पट्टा नं. 437
0
0
10
652
मियादी पट्टा नं. 174
0
0
17
706
मियादी पट्टा नं. 249
0
2
13
711
मियादी पट्टा नं. 435
12
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 435
712
713
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 76
0
8
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 435
766
0
11
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 582
767
0
7
1
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 582
768
0
0
1
798
मियादी पट्टा नं. 529
0
799
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 5
10
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 249
800
0
801
10
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 68
0
5
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 561
814
0
1
5
815
मियादी पट्टा नं. 561
0
1
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 561
816
817
0
0
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 6
0
818
1
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 6
0
0
15
819
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 249
0
0
5
831
मियादी पट्टा नं. 367
0
0
4
832
मियादी पट्टा नं. 367
0
0
4
833
मियादी पट्टा नं. 555
0
1
4
877
मियादी पट्टा नं. 434
0
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 364 878
0
0
18
879
मियादी पट्टा नं. 321
0
1
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 484
880
0
0
5
881
मियादी पट्टा नं. 367
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 322
882
883
0
0 10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 7
10769 भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9,1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
(7)
(6)
(8) (9) (3)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(2)
0
11
0
चारीगाँव
जोरहाट
884
मियादी पट्टा नं. 554
1 नं. बासुन गाँव
0
8
0
(पूर्व)
901
(भाग-1)
मियादी पट्टा नं. 322
0
0
4
902
मियादी पट्टा नं. 367
0
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 484
903
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 126
909
0
5
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 266
915
0
0
15
927
मियादी पट्टा नं. 323
0
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 498
988
4
0
1
989
मियादी पट्टा नं. 371
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 629
1000
0
1
12
1001
मियादी पट्टा नं. 7
6
0
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 530
1002
0
2
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 372
1004
0
9
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 530
1007
0
0
17
मियादी पट्टा नं. 441
1008
0
7
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 309
1009
0
14
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 440
1054
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 442
1103
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 185
1104
0
0
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 602
1105
0
4
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 572
1120
0
1
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 375
1121
13
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 602
1122
4
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 203
1123
0
0
11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 328
1124
1
562
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 31
0
0
986
11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 69
0
0
11
1010
मियादी पट्टा नं. 327
0
0
8
मिबादी पट्टा नं. 329
1057
0
11
0
1056
मिथादी पट्टा नं. 530
0
0 11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 441
1055
0
0
3
555
मियादी पट्टा नं. 252
0
5
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 141
556
0
1
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 143
558
0
1
6
मियादी पट्टा नं. 335
559
4
3
10
झुल
0
2
1
चारीगाँव
मियादी पट्टा नं. 351
1159
0 11
0
कोरहाट (पूर्व)
3. 1 नं. बामुनौव (भाग-2)
मियादी पट्टा नं. 424
1176
0
0
15
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 411
1177
0
0 15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 351
1255 10770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] (2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(5)
(7) (8) ( 9) चारीगाँव
0
0
13 1 नं. बामुनगाँव
मियादी पट्टा नं. 427
1256
0
0
5 (भाग-2)
जोरहाट (पूर्व)
मियादी पट्टा नं. 375 1258
6
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 246
1281
0
0
17
मियादी पट्टा नं. 600
1282
0
0 11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 414
1283
0
17
0
1349
मियादी पट्टा नं. 289
0
0
12
मियादी पट्टा नं. 427
1350
0
2
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 576
1351
0
0
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 559
2199
2
0
18
कुल:
4. कलखोवा गाँव
चारीगाँव
25
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं 78
0
2
19 जोरहाट (पूर्व)
658
मियादी पट्टा नं. 503
0
4
1
681
मियादी पट्टा नं. 265
0
3
13
685
मियादी पट्टा नं. 265
0
0
2
686
मियादी पट्टा नं. 160
0
0 11
687
मियादी पट्टा नं. 503
0
0
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 245
689
0
0
18
मियादी पट्टा नं. 484
690
0
3
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 484
694
0
2
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 337
695
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 561
697
0
0
11
811
मियादी पट्टा नं. 241
1
0
13
820
मियादी पट्टा नं. 370
0
2
12
मियादी पट्टा नं. 484
826
0
1
4
मियादी पट्टा नं. 484 829
0
2
12
मियादी पट्टा नं. 562
830
0
0
11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 299
831
832
0
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 19
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 377 835
0
0
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 378
836
0
0
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 321
854
855
0
2
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 24
0
0
7
मियादी पट्टा नं. 269
856
0
5
0
857
मियादी पट्टा नं. 487
1
0
9
858
मियादी पट्टा नं. 328
0
0
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 299
861
0
0
11
862
मियादी पट्टा नं. 262
0
0
13
863
मियादी पट्टा नं. 150
0
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 367
864 10771 भारत का समपन: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौन 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( 1) ]
(7) (8 ) ( 9 )
(6)
(5)
(3)
(4)
(2)
( 1 )
2
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 369
866
1 नं. बामुनगाँव
0 17
0
(भाग-2)
जोरहाट (पूर्व)
मियारी पट्टा नं. 477
867
2
15
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 367
868
2
1
0
मिवादी पट्टा नं. 470
869
1
4
0
898
निवारी पट्टा नं. 339
3
0
10
मिवादी पट्टा नं. 433
1020
5
0
0
मियादी पदा नं. 471
1021
2
0
0
1059
निवादी पट्टा नं. 1
0
2
0
1174
मिवारी पट्टा नं. 1
2 17
0
1219
मियात्री पट्टा नं. 1
3
0
1319
0
निबारी पट्टा नं. 1
14
0
1
1320
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
0
1
0
1321
मिवारी पट्टा नं. 1
2
0
0
1322
मिबाबरी पट्टा नं. 1
1
6
0
1323
मिवारी पट्टा के 1
0
0
1.
1325
मिवारी पट्टा नं. 1
16
0
0
1330
सरकार
0
6
1
मिषादरी पठ्य नं. 73 1338
13
0
0
मिवावरी पट्टा नं. 203
1353
2
0
0
मिवादी पट्टा नं. 412 1354
0
5
0
1355
मिवादी पट्टा नं. 203
0
0
2
मियार्थी पट्टा नं. 203
1357
2
1
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 478 1358
0
6
1
1398
मियादी पट्टा नं. 518
4
0
1
मिबादरी पट्टा नं 233
1442
0
1
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 203
1445
10
0
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 203
1446
15
0
0
मियादीं पट्टा नं. 236
1447
4
0
0
मिकीं पट्टा नं. 364
1448
0
8
1
1449
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 393
0
5
0
1491
मियादी पट्टा नं. 15
4
0
0
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 177
1492
7
0
0
1494
मियादी पट्टा नं. 474
0
1 18-
1498
मिवादी पट्ा नं. 516
8
0
0
1707
मियादी पट्टा नंः: 222
0
15
0
1708
मियादी पट्टा नं. 469
15
0
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 10
1709
12
0
0
1711
मियादी पट्टा नं. 279
0
7
0
1713
मियादी पट्टा नं. 222
3916 G1/06-10 10772
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9, 1928
(2)
(1)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(5)
(7) (8) (9)
चारीगाँव
0
1 नं. बामुनगाँव
0
13
मियादी पट्टा नं. 200
1714
(भाग-2)
जोरहाट (पूर्व)
2
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं .. 428
1715
4
0
1
1716
मियादी पट्टा नं. 201
सरकार
7
1725
0
0
1832
0
11
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
0 . 0
3
1921
मियादी पट्टा नं. 22
4
0
16
कुल:
5. चेंगाली गांव
जोरहाट चारीगांव
0
4
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 105 26
27
0
1
8 (पूर्व)
मियादी पट्टा नं. 88
0
28
0
18
मियादी पट्टा नं. 283
0
29
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 315
0
0
7
मियादी पट्टा नं. 445
30
0
0
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 455
31
0
15
0
32
मियादी पट्टा नं. 105
33
0
0
7
मियादी पट्टा नं. 454
34
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 105
35
0
1
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 463
89
0
1
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 7
98
1
17
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 90
0
99
13
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 443
0
1
8
100
मियादी पट्टा नं. 105
0
1
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 460
101
0
0
5
मियादी पट्टा नं. 463
103
2
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 349
104
0
5
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 193
105
0
0
10
मियादी पट्टा नं. 526
171
0
0
17
172
मियादी पट्टा नं. 422
0
1
10
173
मियादी पट्टा नं. 530
0
1
13
174
मियादी पट्टा नं. 352
4
0
9
कुल:
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/69/2006/ओ.एन.जी.डी.- III]
एम. मार्टिन , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the28th December , 2006
S.O. 5017. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary for supply of natural gas to Numoligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) in the district of Golaghat, Assam , pipeline should be laid from Duliajan to Numoligarh by Assam Gas Company Limited , Duliajan .
And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in Land described in the schedule annexed hereto .
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum Pipeline (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.
10773
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Any person interested in the said land may witin 21 days from the date of this notification , send objections and suggestions to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the competent authority , namely the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat District, Jorhat, Assam .
And every person making such objections and suggestions may also state whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practitioner .
SCHEDULE District: Jorhat
PattaNo.
Circle Mouza
Name ofVillage
Sl. No.
(3)
(4)
(5) (1) (2)
Teok
P.P. No. 86
ChatiaGaon
Lahing
State: Assam
AREA
DagNo.
B
K LRemarks
( 10)
( 8 ) (9)
(7)
(6)
0
13
0
83
2
88
0
10
P.P. No. 120
12 89
0
4
P.P. No. 120
2 90
0
0
P.P. No. 120
0
0
3
P.P. No. 209
99
2
2
0
100
P.P. No. 135
P.P. No. 30
P.P. No. 86
0
0
11 101
4
0
1
102
3
1
0
P.P..No. 102
P.P. No. 27
P.P. No. 120
111
15
0
112
1
3
0
113
7
0
0
1265
Waste Land
TotalArea
P.P. No. 122
ChariGaon 2.
3
5
0
2
18
0
579
3
13 584
0
P.P. No. 212
1 No. Bamun Gaon (1stPart)
Jorhat (East)
P.P. No. 175
0
10 643
1
10
0
0
P.P. No. 437
P.P. No. 174
P.P. No. 249
651
10 652
0
0
17 706
0
0
13
2
711
0
P.P. No. 435
0
12 712
0
P.P. No. 435
P.P. No. 76
0
5 713
0
8 766
0
0
P.P. No. 435
P.P. No. 582
11
0
0
767
7 768
P.P. No. 582
P.P. No. 529
P.P. No. 5
P.P. No. 249
P.P. No. 68
P.P. No. 561
0
1
1
0 798
0
0
1
799
0
0
10
0
800
10
0
0
801
0
0
814
815
0
1
P.P. No. 561
816
0
1
P.P.No. 561
P.P. No. 6
P.P. No. 6
15 817
0
0
0
818
1
0550505
15
0
0
P.P. No. 249
819 10774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (3)
(4)
( 1 ) ( 2)
(5)
(6)
(7) ( 8)
( 10)
(9) 2 .
0
0
831
5
P.P. No. 367
Charigaon
0
P.P. No. 367
832
0
4 1 No. BamunGaon (1stPart)
Jorhat (East)
0
4
0
833
P.P. No. 555
877
0
4
1
P.P. No. 434
0
0
10
P.P. No. 364.
878
0
879
18
P.P. No. 321
0
0
1
3
880
P.P. No. 484
0
881
0
5
P.P. No. 367
882
0
P.P. No. 322
5
0
0
0 10
P.P. No. 7
883
0
P.P. No. 554
884
0
1
0
901
0
8
P.P. No. 322
0
902
0
4
P.P. No. 367
2
0
0
903
P.P. No. 484
0
909
0
P.P. No. 126
5
0
0
915
P.P. No. 266
5
927
0
0
15
P.P. No. 323
0
P.P. No. 498
988
0
1
0
P.P. No. 371
4
989
1
0
1000
0
5
P.P.No. 629
0
12
P.P.No. 7
1001
1
0
1002
3
P.P. No. 530
6
1004
0
1
2
P.P. No. 372
0
1007
P.P. No. 530
0
9
0
0
1008
17
P.P. No. 441
1
P.P. No. 309
1009
0
7
1054
0
14
P.P. No. 440
0
1103
0
P.P.No. 442
0
5
0
1104
P.P. No. 185
5
0
0
1105
P.P.No. 602
9
0
P.P. No. 572
1120
0
0
4
1121
PiP.No. 375
0
1
0
0
P.P. No. 602
1122
0
13
1123
4
0
0
P.P. No. 203
1124
0
11
0
P.P. No. 328
562
0
1
P.P. No. 31
10
986
0
P.P. No. 69
0
11
1010
0
0
P.P.No. 327
11
8
1057
0
PiP. No. 329
0
P.P. No. 530
1056
0
0
11
1055
0
0
P.P. No. 441
11
555
0
0
3
P.P.No. 252
556
0
0
5
P.P. No. 141
558
0
1
8
P.P. No. 143.
0
6
559
1
P.P. No. 335
4
10
Total Aren
3 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
10775
भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौषं 9, 1928
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(4)
(6)
(7) (8) (9) (10) 3. 1 No. BamunGaon
P.P. No. 351
1159
0
1
2
Charigaon
P. P. No.424
1176
0
(2ndPart)
0
11 Jorhat (East)
1177
P.P. No. 411
0
0
15
1255
P.P. No. 351
0
0
15
1256
0
0
P.P.No. 427
13
0
P.P. No. 375
0
1258
5
0
6
P.P. No. 246
1281
1
P.P. No. 600
1282
0
0
17
P.P. No. 414
1283
0
11
0
P.P. No. 289
1349
0
0
17
P.P. No. 427
1350
0
12
0
1351
P.P. No. 576
0
2
5
2199
0
P.P. No. 559
0
9
TotalArea
2
0 18 4. KalakhowaGaon
25
0
P.P.P.P.No.No. 78
0
5
658
0
2
19
P.P. No.503
1
P.P. No. 265
681
0
4
685
0
3
P.P. No. 265
13
0
P.P. No. 160
686
0
2
P.P. No. 503
687
0
0
11
689
0
9
0
P.P. No. 245
0
P.P. No. 484
690
0
18
694
P.P. No.484
0
0
3
P.P. No. 337
695
2
1
0
P.P. No. 561
697
0
0
5
811
0
P.P. No. 241
0
11
P.P.No. 370
820
0
1
13
826
P.P. No. 484
0
2
12
0
P.P. No. 484
829
1
4
P.P. No. 562
830
0
2
12
P.P. No. 299
831
0
0
11
832
P.P. No. 19
0
2
0
835
P.P. No. 377
0
5
0
836
0
0
P.P. No. 378
9.
854
P.P. No. 321
0
0
8
855
P.P. No. 24
0
2
15
0
0
856
P.P. No. 269
7
857
0
P.P.No. 487
0
5
858
P.P. No. 328
9
0
1
861
9
P.P.No. 299
0
0
P.P. No. 262
862
0
0
11
P.P.No. 150
863
0
0
13
864
0
0
P.P. No. 367
2
866
0
P.P. No. 369
0
2
867
0
P.P. No. 477
0
17
P.P. No. 367
2
15
868
0 10776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] (3)
(4)
(1) ( 2)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8 ) (9) ( 10) 4. Kalakhowa Gaon
P.P. No. 470
0
2
869
1
Charigaon
0
4
P.P. No. 339
898
1
Jorhat (East)
1020
3
10
P.P. No. 433
0
1021
0
5
0
P.P. No. 471
0
2
1059
0
P.P. No, 1
0
0
2
1174
P.P.No. 1
1219
0
2
17
P.P. No. 1
0
0
1319
P.P. No. 1
3
P.P. No. 1
1320
0
1
14
1321
1
0
0
P.P. No. 1
1322
0
0
2
P.P. No. 1
1323
0
6
1
P.P. No. 1
0
P.P. No. 1
0 i
1325
Waste Land
1330
0
16
0
0
6
P.P. No. 73
1338
1
1353
0
13
P.P. No. 203
0
1354
0
2
0
P.P. No. 412
0
0
P.P. No. 203
1355
5
P.P. No. 203
2
0
1357
0
0
2
P.P. No. 478
1358
1
1
0
6
P.P. No. 518
1398
4
0
P.P. No. 233
1442
1.
P.P. No. 203
1445
1
9
0
0
1446
P.P. No. 203
3
10
1447
0
0
P.P. No. 236
15
4
0
0
P.P. No. 364
1448
1
P.P. No. 393
1449
0
8
5
0
0
P.P. No. 15
1491
4
P.P. No. 177
1492
0
0
0
7
P.P. No. 474
1494
0
1498
0
1
18
P.P. No. 516
8
1707
0
0
P.P. No. 222
0
1708
15
P.P. No. 469
0
1709
0
2
15
P.P. No. 10
1711
12
0
P.P. No. 279
0
0
1713
0
7
P.P. No. 222
P.P. No. 200
1714
0
13
0
1
P.P. No. 428
1715
0
2
4
1
1716
0
P.P. No. 201
0
Waste Land
0
7
1725
1832
0
1
11
P.P. No. 1
1921
0
3
0
P.P. No. 22
16
4
TotalArea
0
26
0
4
0
P.P. No. 105
5. Chengali Gaon
27
0
8
1
P.P. No. 88
28
0
P.P. No. 283
0
18 10777
भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(3)
(4) (1) ( 2)
(8)
(6)
(7)
(9) ( 10) (5)
10
0
0
29
P.P. No. 315
5. ChengaliGaon
Charigaon
7
0
0
30
P.P. No. 455
Jorhat (East)
0
15 31
0
P.P. No. 455
0
15 32
0
P.P. No. 105
7
0
0
33
P.P. No. 454
0
0
5 34
P.P. No. 105
0
1
15 35
P.P. No. 463
0
1
0 89
P.P. No. 7
:
17
0
1
98
P.P. No. 90
13
0
1
99
P.P. No. 443
0
1
8 100
P.P. No. 105
5 101
0
1 .
P.P.No.460
0
0
5 103
P.P. No. 463
0
2
1
104
P.P. No. 349
0
0
5 105
P.P.No. 193
0
10
0
171
P.P. No. 526
17
0
0
172
P.P. No. 422
10
0
1
173
P.P. No. 530
13
0
1
174
P.P. No. 352
4
0
9 TotalArea
[F. No. O- 12016/69/2006- ONGD- III
M. MARTIN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5018.- जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि नुमलीगढ़ रिफाइनरी लिमिटेड को प्राकृतिक गैस आपूर्ति के लिये दुलियाजान से नुमलीगढ़ जिला गोलाघाट तक आसाम गैस कम्पनी लिमिटेड, दुलियाजान द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछायी जानी चाहिए।
और अतः यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी लाइनों को बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये इसके साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित कर आवश्यक है ।
अतः अब पेट्रोलियम 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का अपना आशय एतदद्वारा घोषित करती है ।
उक्त भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये आपत्ति और सुझाव सक्षम अधिकारी नामतः जिला उपायुक्त डिब्रूगढ़ , असम को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से 21 दिनों के भीतर कर सकता है ।
और ऐसी आपत्ति और सुझाव देने वाला हर व्यक्ति यह भी बताएगा कि क्या वह अपनी सुनवाई व्यक्तिगत रूप से चाहता है अथवा किसी विधि व्यवसायी के माध्यम से ।
जिला : डिब्रूगढ़
मौजा गांव का नाम सर्कल
क्रम सं
(4)
(3)
(1 ) (2)
टिपलींग 1. जालानी टी.ई. ग्रांट: 263-283
टेंगाखाट (भाग 1)
अनुसूची
राज्य : असम
क्षेत्रफल
दाग नं.
पट्टा नं.
लुसा
बीघा कट्टा
(9) (6)
(7) (8 )
(5)
0 25
0
1
26
11
2
0
263 एन.एल.आर. 263 एन. एल. आर.
2
1
11 कुल 10778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii )] (1) (2)
(4)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(8 ) ( 9 )
(7)
2. 1 नं बरपथार
टेंगाखाट टिपलींग
2
4
4
220
मियादी पट्टा नं. 26
गांव
232
2
1
16
मियादी पट्टा नं. 6
1
0
9
233
मियादी पट्टा नं. 38
3.
0
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
245
2
सरकार
246
0
10
सरकार
297
0
0
5
0
2
18
मयादी पट्टा नं. 15
298
0
0
6
363
मियादी- पट्टा नं. 1
0
19
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 59
366
0
0
15
367
मियादी पट्टा नं. 72
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 72
368
1
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 122
369
16
सरकार
370
0
0
5
414
1
1
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 19
3
9
19
कुल
3. 1 नं. नवहोलिया
2
0
0
16
मियादी पट्टा नं. 8
गांव
0
8
4
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 13
10
सरकार
0
0
15
11
0
1
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 8
12
0
1
7
मियादी पट्टा नं. 47
13
1
0
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 61
14
0
0
3
120
मियादी पट्टा नं.
15
0
2
17
60
मियादी पट्टा नं.
17
0
3
18
मियादी पट्टा नं. 97
21
0
3
42
मियादी पट्टा नं.
5
23
0
1
4
मियादी पट्टां नं. 43
24
0
0
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 42
25
0
1
19
मियादी पट्टा नं. 5
सरकार
26
0
0
7
27
0
13
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 11
32
2
0
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 19
33
0
2
17
मियादी पट्टा नं. 52
36
0
2
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 36
37
0
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 25
1
40
0
15
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
41
4
0
14
मियादी पट्टा नं. 69
0
3
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 130 49
4
4
कुल
18 10779 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
(9)
(6)
(8)
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(7)
0
Ю
12
0
4.
टेंगाखाट टिपलींग
सरकार
हुकुता गांव
3
0
11
36
28
मियादी पट्टा नं..
1. 0
38
18
मियादी पट्टा नं. 47
17
45
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
1
0
11
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 100 46
0
1
2
सरकार
61
2
0
62
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 2
71
9
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
15
72
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 50
7
2
0
73
मियादी पट्टा नं. 21
0
76
1
1
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 62
77
2
3
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 68
6
0
0
78
मियादी पट्टा नं. 62
4
0
15
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 31 262
2
0
7
64 263
मियादी पट्टा नं.
0
0
16
मियादी पट्टा नं. 18
265
266
0
2
11
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 5
0
2
267
11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 56
0
1
12
268
मियादी पट्टा नं. 76
0
0
18
269
मियादी पट्टा नं. 11
270
0
0
15
मियादी पट्टा नं. 60
14
271
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 68
0
0
8
272
सरकार
0
0
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 43
324
18
0
1
326
एकासना
2
0
0
102 327
मियादी पट्टा नं.
9
3
0
सरकार
328
329
0
5
0
एकासना
5
330
0
0
एकासना
16
332
0
0
एकासना
2
0
347
0
सरकार
0
2 18
348
सरकार
4
0
0
349
एकासना
0
19
सरकार
352
0
0
426
1
2
एकासना
2
426
1
0.
एकासना
12
428
0
2
एकासना
16
0
3
मियादी पट्टा नं. 89
429
0
16
2
मियादी पट्टा नं. 28
432
433
0
0
3
14
4 8
कुल
3916 G1/06-11
/ [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 10780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
(7) (8 ) (9) (3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(1)
2 )
1
15
177
0
टेंगाखाट टिपलींग
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
5. ड- हुकुता गांव
17
0
2
179
मियादी पट्टा नं. 34
2
16
0
180
चाह मियादी नं. 1
5
0
0
182
मियादी पट्टा नं. 34
9
0
0
183
मियादी पट्टा नं. 31
0
3
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 29
184
4
0
0
215
मियादी पट्टा नं. 41
0
18
0
217
मियादी पट्टा नं. 32
1
0
8
218
मियादी पट्टा नं. 2
10
0
3
221
मियादी पट्टा नं. 2
0
0
11
222
सरकार
7
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 30
223
1
3
3
कुल
4
7
1
40
टेंगाखाट टिपलींग
मियादी पट्ट्टानं.
0
0
15
96
सरकार
6. जालानी 15 नं. आवेदन भाग 1 .
6
0
97
0
सरकार
0
98
0
15
सरकार
0
9
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 27
126
0
127
1
16
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
0
0
7
144
मियादी पट्टा नं. 26
0
0
18
मियादी पट्टा नं. 34
162
3
1
12
163
मियादी पट्टा नं.. 34
2
10
0
कुल
13 टेंगाखाट
38
0
0
टिपलींग
सरकार
7. नलानी पथार
1
0
19
42
सरकार
1
2
43
18
एकासना
6
0
0
49
सरकार
8
1
0
50
सरकार
0
52
3.
0
सरकार
3
81
10
0
सरकार
2
4
0
83
सरकार
6
84
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
0
0
1
सरकार
85
2
86
15
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
3
12
1
90
एकासना
0
4
91
0
सरकार
15
0
0
सरकार
146
1
17
164
0
सरकार 10781 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(8) (9)
(7)
(6)
(5)
(2)
(4)
(3)
(1)
0
3
1
170
सरकार
टेंगाखाट टिपलींग
नलानी पथार
9
2
1
176
सरकार
2
4
11
कुल
4
19
0
46
टिपलींग
सरकार
17
0
0
47
मियादी पट्टा नं. 4
8. जालानी टी.इ. 1897- टेंगाखाट 98 आवेदन नं. 81
5
I
1
48
मियादी पट्टा नं. 2
2
15
2
49
मियादी पट्टा नं. 2
7
0
0
50
सरकार
0
2
1
52
सरकार
1
5
5
कुल
2
6.
3
1
259एन. एळ. आर.
9. जालानी टी.इ. टेंगाखाट टिपलींग
1
17
0
5
259एन. एळ. आर.
250 एन.एल.आर ग्रान्ट
4
0
0
6
259एन. एळ. आर.
3
0
13
0
259एन. एळ. आर.
2
4
14
1
259एन. एळ. आर.
1
4
17
15
सरकार
9
3
5
कुल:
10
0
0
24
सरकार
15
2
56
0
सरकार
10. डिहिंगकिनार नाहारकटिया जोयपुर बंदधारी
14
0
0
60
एकासना
0
14
0
61
एकासना
2
2
62
0
एकासना
2
0
0
63
एकासना
0
10 .
74
0
सरकार
8
0
75
0
सरकार
2
0
0
76
सरकार
9
2
0
एकासना
11
1
0
78
एकासना
5
0
79
0
एकासना
2
0
81.
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 3
2
0
0
82
सरकार
2
1
0
83
सरकार
6
0
0
86
सरकार
0
14
1
92
एकासना
8
0
0
93
एकासना
3
94
1
0
एकासना .
0
10
0
95
सरकार
3
13
96
0
एकासना
3
17
97
0
एकासना 10782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
(2)
(1)
(5)
(4)
(5)
सरकार
नाहारकटिया जोयपुर ( जारी ) 10. डिहिंगकिनार बंदधारी
सरकार
सरकार
सरकार
एकासना
सरकार
सरकार
कुल:
11. हाथीगढ़ ब्लोक
सरकार
नाहारकटिया जोयपुर
सरकार
एकासना
.एकासना
एकासना
एकासना
एकासना
[PART II-SFC . 3 ( ii)] (6)
(7) (8) (9) 98
0
1
16 99
0
2
0
4
2
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 14 101
102
0
0
2 103
0
0
6 104
0
2
0
0
105
0
10 304
0
2
2
3
8
2
3
0
2 69
70
1
0
12 74
0
2
5
0
83
4
7 84
0
1
18 86
0
1
14 87
1
0
4
1
0
89
0
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 9
कुल
4
2
1
4
0
1
6
मियादी पट्टा नं. 92
नाहारकटिया जोयपुर
12. टिपलिंग बंदधारी
5
0
0
14
मियादी पट्टा नं. 92
6
0
0
10
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 92
सरकार
सरकार
सरकार
मियादी पट्टा नं.
7
0
17
1
8
0
0
11 9
0.
0
18
4
13
0
6 92
17
0
2
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 122
0
19
1
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 19
4
20
0
13
मियादी पट्टा नं. 92
22
0
0
8
मियादी पट्टा नं. 1
23
2
0
11
मियादी पट्टा नं. 27
एकासना
सरकार
एकासना
एकासना
सरकार
कुल 24
1
10
0
25
0
4
5 26
0
0
17 27
0
0
8 267
0
1
4
2
5
9 [फा. सं. ओ.- 12016/69/2006/ओ.एन.जी.डी- III ]
एम. मार्टिन , अवर सचिव 10783 भारत का राजपल: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 28th December , 2006
S.O. 5018. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessoary for supply of natural gas to Numoligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) in the district of Golaghat, Assam, pipeline should be laid from Duliajan to Numoligarh by Assam Gas Company Limited, Duliajan .
And whereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in Land described in the schedule annexed hereto .
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum Pipeline (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 said land may within 21 days from the date of this notification send objections and suggestions to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the competent authority , namely the Deputy Commissioner , Dibrugarh District, Dibrugarh, Assam.
And every person making such objections and suggestions may also state whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practitioner.
SCHEDULE
State: Assam District : Dibrugarh
Patta No.
Mouza
DagNo.
Name ofVillage Circle
AREA K
L Remarks
B
Sl. No.
(8)
(10)
(7)
(9)
(6)
(5)
(4)
(2)
(3)
(1)
0
0
1
25
Tipling
Tengakhat
2
0
11
26
263 NL.R. 263 N.L.R.
1. Jalani T.E. Grant No. 263-282
11
1
2
TotalArea
4
4
2
220
P.P. No. 26
2
1
16
232
P.P. No. 6
2. 1 No. Borpathar Tengakhat Tipling gaon
9
0
1
233
P:P. No. 38
8
0
3
245
P.P. No. 61
2
10
246
0
Waste Land
5
0
0
297
Waste Land
18
2
0
298
P.P. No. 15
6
363
0
0
P.P. No. 1
19
0
2
366
P.P. No. 59
15
0
0
367
P.P. No. 72
0
0
368
1
P.P. No. 72
16
0
0
369
P.P. No. 122
5
0
0
370
Waste land
8
1
1
414
P.P. No. 19
19
3
9
TotalArea
0
16
0
2
P.P. No. 8
2
4
0
8
P.P. No. 13
3. 1 No. Nawholiya Tengakhat Tipling gaon
15
0
0
10
Waste land
15
0
1
11
P.P. No. 8
7
1
0
12
P.P. No. 47
0
1
13
P.P. No. 61
0
0
83
14
P.P. No. 120
17
0
2
15
P.P. No. 60 10784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (4)
(1) ( 2)
(3)
(5)
(6) (7) (8) (9)
17
P.P. No. 97
0
3
18 3. 1 No. Nawholiya Tengakhat Tipling
gaon
P.P. No. 42
21
0
3
5
23
0
1
P.P. No.43
4
P.P. No. 42
24
0
0
15
P.P. No. 5
25
0
1
19
26
Waste land
0
7
0
P.P. No. 11
27
0
2
13
0
32
2
3
P.P. No. 19
P.P. No. 52
33
2
0
17
36
P.P. No. 36
2
2
0
0
P.P. No. 25
1
3
37
40
P.P. No. 1
1 15
P.P. No. 69
41
4
14
49
000
3
0
P.P. No. 130
4
Total Area
4
18
Waste land
12
0
0
10 4. Hukuta gaon Tengakhat Tipling
36
P.P. No. 28
11
0
3
P.P. No. 47
38
1
0
18
45
P.P. No. 1
0
0
17
46
P.P. No. 100
0
11
1
Waste land
61
1
2
0
62
P.P. No. 2
0
3
2
71
0
P.P. No. 1
1
9
0
P.P. No. 50
72
0
15
P.P. No. 21
73
0
2
7
76
P.P. No. 62
0
1
1
77
P.P. No. 68
0
2
3
P.P. No. 62
78
0
0
6
262
0
4
P.P. No. 31
15
263
P.P. No. 64
0
2
7
0
P.P. No. 18
265
0
16
266
P.P. No. 5
0
2
11
267
P.P. No. 56
0
2
11
P.P. No. 76
268
0
12
1
P.P. No. 11
269
0
0 18
270
P.P. No. 60
0
0
15
271
0
P.P. No. 68
1
14
Waste land
272
0
0
8
324
P. No. 43
0
0
8
0
Annual
326
1
18
P.P. No. 102
327
0
2
0
Waste land
328
0
3
9
Annual
329
0
0
5
Annual
330
0
0
5
Annual
332
0
0
16 10785 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
(9)
(8)
(7)
(6)
(5)
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
0
2
0
347
Waste land
Tengakhat Tipling
4. Hukuta gaon
2
18
0
348
Waste land
0
4
0
349
Annual
0
0
19
352
Waste land
2
0
426
1
Anfual
2
12
0
428
Annual
3
16
0
429
P.P. No.89
0
2
16
432
P.P. No. 28
0
0
3
433
4
8
14
TotalArea
15
1
0
177
P. P. No. 1
5. Da-Hukuta gaon Tengakhat Tipling
0.
17
2
179
P.P. No. 34
2
16
180
0
T.P. No. 1
0
5
0
182
P.P. No. 34
9
0
0
183
P.P. No. 31
3
1
0
184
P.P. No. 29
4
0
215
0
P.P. No.41
18
0
0
217
P.P. No. 32
8
1
0
218
P.P. No. 2
10
3
0
221
P.P. No. 2
11
0
0
222
Waste land
17
0
0
223
P.P. No. 30
3
3
1
TotalArea
1
4
40
7
P.P. No.
6.
Tengakhat Tipling
15
0
0
96
Waste land
6
0
0
Waste land
97
15
0
0
98
Waste land
0
0
9
126
P.P. No. 27
1
16
127
0
P.P. No. 1
7
0
0
144
P.P. No. 26
162
0 18
0
P.P. No. 34
1
3
12
163
P.P. No. 34
2
10
0
TotalArea
0
13
0
38
Waste land
7. Nalani Pather Tengakhat Tipling
0
19
42
1
Waste land
2
18
43
1
Annual
0
6
0
49
Waste land
8
50
1
0
Waste land
0
0
3
52
Waste land
0
3 10
81
Waste land
4
0
2
83
Waste land
84
1
6
P. P. No. 1
0
1
0
85
Waste land
15
0
2
86
P.P. No. 1
12
3
90
1
Annual 10786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ( 1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8 ) (9) 7. Nalani Pather
0
Waste land
91
0
4 Tengakhat Tipling
Waste land
146
0
0
15
Waste land
164
0
1
17
Waste land
170
1
0
3
2
Waste land
176
1
9
4
TotalArea
11
2
46
0
Waste land
4
19 8. Jalani T.E. 1897-98 Tengakhat Tipling
P.P.No. 4
81 No. Application
47
0
17
0
1
1
P.P. No. 2
5
48
P.P. No.2
49
2
2
15
Waste land
50
0
0
7
Waste land
52
1
0
2
5
TotalArea
1
5
259 No. N.L.R.
3
1
2
9. Jalani T.E. 259 No. Tengakhat Tipling
6 N.L.R. Grant
5
259 No. N.L.R.
1
0
17
6
259 No. N.L.R.
0
0
259 No. N.L.R.
13
0
0
3
14
259 No. N.L.R.
1
4
2
Waste land
15
1
4
17
TotalArea
5
3
9
24
Waste land
0
0
10 Naharkatia Joypore
10. Dehingkinar Banhdhari
Waste land
56
2
0
15
60
0
Annual
14
0
Annual
61
0
0
14
Annual
62
0
2
2
Annual
63
0
0
2
Waste land
74
0
0
10
Waste land
75
0
0
8
76
Waste land
0
0
2
Annual
77
0
9
2
Annual
78
0
1
11
Annual
79
0
0
5
P.P. No. 3
81
0
2
0
Waste land
0
0
82
2
Waste land
83
0
1
2
Waste land
86
0
0
6
Annual
92
1
14
Annual
93
0
0
8
Annual
94
1
0
3
Waste land
95
0
0
10
Annual
96
0
3
13
Annual
97
0
3
17
Waste land
98
0
1
16
Waste land
99
0
0
2
P.P. No. 14
101
4
0
2
Waste land
102
0
0
2 10787 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
(2)
(3)
(5)
(8)
(7)
(1)
(4)
(6)
(9)
6
103
0
0
Waste land
Naharkatia Joypore
10. Dehingkinar Banhdhari
0
0
2
104
Annual
0
10
Waste land
105
0
2
2
304
0
Waste land
8
3
2
TotalArea
0
3
2
Waste land
69
11. Hatigarh Block Naharkatia Joypore
0
1
12
70
Waste land
0
2
5
74
Annual
0
4
7
83
Annual
0
18
84
1
Annual
14
86
0
1
Annual
0
4
1
87
Annual
1
0
0
P.P. No. 9
89
4
2
1
TotalArea
4
6
0
1
P.P. No. 92
12. Tipling Banhdhari Naharkatia Joypore
14
0
0
5
P.P. No. 92
0
0
10
6
P.P. No. 92
17
7
0
1
Waste land
11
0
0
8
Waste land
0
18
0
9
Waste land
4
6
13
0
P.P. No.92
2
0
0
17
P.P. No. 122
0
و
19
1
P.P. No. 19
4
13
20
0
P.P. No. 92
8
22
0
0
P.P. No. 1
2
11
0
23
P.P. No.27
10
1
24
0
Annual
0
4
5
25
Waste land
17
0
26
0
Annual
0
8
0
27
Annual
4
1
0
267
Waste land
2
9
5
TotalArea
[F. No. O- 12016/69 /2006/ONGD- III)
M. MARTIN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5019. - जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि नुमलीगढ़ रिफाइनरी लिमिटेड को प्राकृतिक गैस आपूर्ति के लिये दुलियाजान से नुमलीगढ़ जिला गोलाघाट तक आदलियाजान द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछायी जानी चाहिए।
और अतः यह प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी लाइनों को बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये इसके साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करना आवश्यक है ।
अतः अब पेट्रोलियम 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 केन्द्रीय सरकार उसमें उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का अपना आशय एतद्वारा घोषित करती है ।
3916GI/06-12 10788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] उक्त भूति में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये आपत्ति और सुझाव सक्षम अधिकारी नामतः जिला उपायुक्त गोलाघाट, असम को इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से 21 दिनों के भीतर कर सकता है ।
और ऐसी आपत्ति और सुझाव देने वाला हर व्यक्ति यह भी बताएगा कि क्या वह अपनी सुनवाई व्यक्तिगत रूप से चाहता है अथवा किसी विधि व्यवसायी के माध्यम से ।
अनुसूची जिला : गोलाघाट
गांव का नाम सर्कल मौजा
पट्टा नं.
क्रम सं
(2)
(4)
(1)
(3)
(5)
सरकार 1. लेटेक्कु छापरी गांव
खुमटाइ
खुमटाइ
एकसना पन्ना
राज्य : असम
क्षेत्रफल
दाग नं.
बीघा
लुसा
कट्टा
(7) (8)
(6)
(9) (10)
2
8
0
26
1
4
35
0
0
2
15
73
मियादी पट्ा नं.. 1
0
1
143
19
मियादी पट्टा नं. 4
कुल:
रंगमाटी
3
6
1
7
0
296
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 51
2. छेवनीगांव ( भाग 1 ) खुमटाई
3
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 11 298
0
0
10
302
मियादी पट्टा नं. 51
4
0
2
303
मियादी पट्टा नं. 105
सरकार
2
0
0
304
0
0
17
305
मियादी पट्टा नं. 31
0
1
0
320
मियादी पट्टा नं. 74
7
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं 57
324
6
0
0
334
मियादी पट्टा नं. 57
0
8 335
0
मियादी पट्ट्टा नं. 31
0
336
0
8
मियादी पट्टा नं.. 9
0
0
9
मियादी पट्टा नं. 102
337
11
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 131 339
8
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 33 340
7
0
1
मियादी पट्टा नं. 75
341
0
3
0
342
मियादी पट्टा नं. 12
12
0
0
381
मियादी पट्टा नं. 77
सरकार
सरकार
कुल:
मोरंगी
मोरंगी
सरकार 3. लेटेकु छापरी गांव
सरकार
सरकार
कुल
1
2
0
1014
2
0
0
मियादी पट्टा नं. 57 1095
0
0
19 1137
2
5
2
4
5
1
1
6
0
1
5
1
13
0
18
4
3
5
[फा. सं. ओ-12016/69/2006/ ओ.एन.जी.डी.- III]
एम. मार्टिन , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
10789
New Delhi, the 28th December, 2006
S.O. 5019. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary for supply of natural gas to Numoligarh Refinery Limited (NRL) in the district of Golaghat, Assam, pipeline should be laid from Duliajan to Numoligarh byAssam Gas Company Limited, Duliajan.
Andwhereas it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in Land described in the schedule annexed hereto .
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -Section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum Pipeline (Acquisition ofRight of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein.
Any person interested in the said land may witin 21 days from the date of this notification send objections and suggestions to the laying of the pipeline under the land to the competent authority , namely the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat District, Golaghat, Assam .
And every person making such objections and suggestions may also state whether he wishes to be heard in person or by a legal practitioner.
SCHEDULE
District:Golaghat
Circle
Mouza NameofVillage
Sl. No.
(3)
(5) ( 2)
(4) (1)
Khumtai
1.
Khumtai
Annual
Leteku Chapari gaon
2.
Khumtai Rangamati Chewni gaon (1stPart)
State: Assam
PattaNo.
DagNo.
AREA K
L Remark
B
(8)
(6)
(7)
(9) ( 10)
0
2
8 26
Waste land
4
0
1
35
0
2
15 73
P.P. No. 1
19
0
1
143
P.P. No. 4
6
3
1
TotalArea
7
0
0
296
P.P. No. 51
0
3
σ
298
P.P. No. 11
0
10
0
P.P. No. 51
302
4
2
303
0
P.P. No. 105
2
0
304
0
Waste land
17
0
305
0
P.P. No. 31
0
1
320
0
P.P. No. 74
0
7
0
324
P.P. No. 57
6 334
0
0
P.P. No. 57
8
0
0
P.P.No. 31
335
8
0
336
0
P.P. No. 9
337
0
0
9
P.P. No. 102
0
0 11 339
P.P. No. 131
8
0
0
340
P.P. No. 33
7 341
0
1
P.P. No. 75
0
3 342
0
P.P. No. 12
0
12 381
0
P.P. No. 77
2
0
1
1014
Waste land
2
0
0
1095
P.P. No. 57
0
0 19 1137
Waste land
2
2
5
TotalArea 10790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (1) ( 2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(7)
(6)
(8) (9) ( 10) 3.
Waste land
1
5
Leteku Chapari
4
1
Marangi Marangi
5
gaon
0
1
6
Waste land
18
0
Waste land
1
13
TotalArea
5
3
4
[F. No. O- 12016/69 /2006/ONGD - III]
M. MARTIN, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 28 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5020.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2705 तारीख 07-06-2006 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में दहेज- हजीरा- उरान एवं स्पर पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचनाओं की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 31-08-2006 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;
और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुए;
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;
अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निर्देश देती है कि पाइपालाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, पाइपलाईनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार , इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला
तहसील
गांव
सर्वे नं.
आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षे. ( हेक्ट में ) 1
2
3
4
5 वलसाड
वलसाड
अंजवाल
982
0-72-36
983
0-18-50
984
985
नहर
0-18-53
976
0-23-54
970
0-11-00
971
0-01-01
972
973
0-09-60
954
0-24-00
953 10791 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
5 2
3
1
0-33-60
952
रोड
0-24-40
12606
949
948
947
946
0-35-00
0-12-10
937
936
935
0-64-07
934
0-04-80
रोड
0-18-00
644
0-27-60
645
रोड
0-04-80
0-05-06
626अ
0-07-80
627
0-24-00
628
0-02-40
630
0-02-40
615
631
0-54-40
0-24-00
632
0-12-00
578
5-74-47
योग
[फा. सं. एल-14014/12/06- जी.पी. ( भाग-1 ) ]
एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 28th December, 2006
S.O. 5020. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 2705 dated 07-06-2006 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to the notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of natural gas through Dehej -Hazira- Uran and its spur pipeline in the State of Gujarat by the GAIL (India) Limited;
Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 31-08-2006;
Andwhereas no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;
Andwhereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government ;
And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report , decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
10792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] And, further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest , on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL ( India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
District
Tahsil
Village
SurveyNo.
Area to be acquired for R.O.U. ( in Hect .) 1
2
3
4
5 Valsad
Valsad
982
0-72-36
Anjalav
983
0-18-50
984
985
Canal
0-18-53
976
0-23-54
970
0-11-00
971
0-01-01
972
973
0-09-60
954
0-24-00
953
952
0-33-60
Road
909B
0-24-40
949
948
947
946
0-35-00
937
0-12-10
936
935
934
0-64-07
Road
0-04-80
644
0-18-00
645
0-27-60
Road
0-04-80
626A
0-05-06
627
0-07-80
628
0-24-00
630
0-02-40
615
0-02-40
631
0-54-40
632
0-24-00
578
0-12-00
Total
5-74-47
[F. No. L- 14014/12/06 -G.P . (Part - 1 ) ]
S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy .
10793 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 5021. -केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 22.07.06 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का आ. 2793 तारीखे 18.07.2006 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील थांदला जिला झाबुआ राज्य मध्यप्रदेश में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 24.08.2006 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;
अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप -धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।
अनुसूचि
राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश
जिला
झाबुआ
तहसील -थांदला
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
सर्वे नम्बर
गाँव का नाम
क्रमांक
4
3
2
1
0.1008
144
1
सेमलपाड़ा
0.1224
145
0.2160
146
0.1368
143
0.0288
140
0.2016
142
0.0324
139
0.0144
151
0.1440
152
0.0720
134 10794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 2
3
4
116
0.1296
सोमलमाड़ा (जारी )
1
117
0.0288
118/3
0.0072
115/1
0.2808
115/2
0.0280
110
0.0140
103/3
0.0025
103/4
0.1440
103/5
0.0490
101
0.0960
100
0.1760
99
0.1698
102/2
0.0032
98
0.0025
1
97/1
0.1152
96
0.0396
95
0.0140
94
0.0630
87
0.0025
93
0.1028
92
0.0720
90
0.1472
91
0.0585
79
0.1944
80
0.2140
78
0.0720
72
0.0072
74
0.0720
181
0.0612
2
सागवा
492
0.1808
432
0.0144
3
खवासा
1866
0.0120
1867
0.0480
1868
0.0180
4
442
नहारपुरा
0.0025
479
0.0108
477
0.1656
[फा. सं. आर -25011/1/2006-ओ.आर. - 1 ]
एस. के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव 10795 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
New Delhi , the 18th December , 2006
S. O. 5021.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . number S.O. 2793 dated 18.07.2006 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) published in the Gazette of India dated 22.07.2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to Tehsil Thandla , Dist -Jhabua , State Madhya Pradesh, for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ,
And whereas , the coptes of the said Gazette notification were made available to the general public on 24.08.2006
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 is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired,
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline,
And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead ofvesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .
Schedule
District: - Jhabua
Tehsil : Thandia
State : -Madhya pradesh SL No.
Area in Hector
SurveyNo.
Nameof Village
3
1
2
4
1
144
0.1008
Semaipara
0.1224
145
0.2160
146
143
0.1368
140
0.0288
0.2016
142
0.0324
139
151
0.0144
152
0.1440
0.0720
134
0.1296
116
3916G1/06-13 10796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9,1928
3
2
117 Semulpara
1
118/3
115/1
115/2
110
103/3
103/4
103/5
101
100
99
102/2
98
97/1
96
95
94
87
93
92
90
91
79
80
78
72
74
181
492 Sagwa
432 3
Khawasa
1866
1867
1868 4
442 Naharpura
479
477
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ) 4
0.0288
0.0072
0.2808
0.0280
0.0140
0.0025
0.1440
0.0490
0.0960
0.1760
0.1698
0.0032
0.0025
0.1152
0.0396
0.0140
0.0630
0.0025
0.1028
0.0720
0.1472
0.0585
0.1944
0.2140
0.0720
0.0072
0.0720
0.0612
0.1868
0.0144
0.0120
0.0480
0.0180
0.0025
0.0108
0.1656
[F. No. R -25011 /1/2006 - O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
10797 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 5022 - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 22.07.06 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का आ. 2794 तारीख 18.07.2006 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील मेघनगर जिला झाबुआ राज्य मध्यप्रदेश में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 24.08.2006 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;
अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा । 10798
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
अनुसूचि
राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश
जिला
तहसील - मेधनगर
झाबुआ
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
सर्वे नम्बर
कमाक
गाँव का नाम
4
3
2
1
0.0252
100
ढाढनिया
1
0.2412
101
0.0210
102
0.1224
79
0.0220
77
0.0072
80
76
01040
0.1450
75
0.2088
2
मेघनगर
183
0.2156
180
0.0162
182
125
0.2592
0.0018
126
0.0720
123/1
122/1
0.1440
0.0210
122/2
0.2880
117
0.3672
105/1/2
105/2
0.1448
0.0080
106
0.1800
107
0.0140
89
0.1520
86
0.2808
85
0.3816
63
0.2304
62
0.0166
1
3
31
0.0756
नवापाड़ा धन्ना
0.0012
32
0.0090
257
4
बेड़ावली
0.0015
255
256
0.0315
256/637
0.0420
230
0.0720
0.0020
258
262
0.0087
260
0.0630 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10799
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
3
2
1
4
259 बेड़ावली निरन्तर......
261
266
332
331
330
333
327
336
326
325
324
323
368
369
367
366
377
365
364
363
406
407/2
536
537
407/3
535
534
531/5
531/6
531/7
531/8
531/10
531/15
531/16
531/17
531/14
527
528
526 4
0.0490
0.0101
0.0210
0.0424
0.0110
0.0744
0.0280
0.0540
0.1008
0.0144
0.0280
0.0480
0.0104
0.0584
0.0152
0.0490
0.0491
0.0498
0.0630
0.0560
0.1440
0.0144
0.1728
0.0420
0.0015
0.0020
0.0030
0.0280
0.0348
0.0320
0.0560
0.0140
0.0790
0.0630
0.0428
0.0348
0.0080
0.0896
0.0015
0.0256 10800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
3 1
2
4
524 बेड़ावली निरन्तर....
571
566
570
569
572/2
580
581
582
603/1
603/2
603/3
603/4
603/644
605
604/2
604/5
604/1
620
621
625
626
627
624 5
नौगांवा
230/2
230/1
231
233
234
232
276
278
277
280
281
282
283
284
289
290 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 4
0.0140
0.0838
0.0212
0.0630
0.1296
0.0100
0.3600
0.1296
0.0144
0.1980
0.1800
0.1764
0.1080
0.0900
0.0348
0.1260
0.0840
0.0844
0.1800
0.2808
0.0520
0.0208
0.0800
0.0135
0.0240
0.1080
0.2052
0.1154
0.0504
0.1252
0.0180
0.2160
0.0288
0.0108
0.0082
0.0936
0.0540
0.0648
0.1008
0.1296 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
10801
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
1
2
3 5
नौगांवा निरन्तर, ....
293
294
298
378 6
131
गुड़ा छोटा
132
133
134
135
139
140
142
145
128
18
17 7
169
महुड़ा
170
168
1
167
166
165
176
177/1
178
179
180/1
189
478
479
480
481
483
484
462
485
440
439
438 4
0.0720
0.0721
0.0810
0.0792
0.1512
0.0540
0.0082.
0.0360
0.1384
0.0240
0.0696
0.0050
0.3312
0.0102
0.3942
0.2184
0.1008
0.0324
0.0125
0.2592
0.0252
0.1296
0.0720
0.0792
0.0468
0.0216
0.0468
0.1368
0.1872
0.0864
0.0144
0.1800
0.1224
0.0936
0.1188
0.0720
0.0252
0.1008
0.1368
0.1080 10802
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
2
3
4
1
7
433
0.0180
महुड़ा निरन्तर......
434
0.1368
432
0.0252
430
0.2080
429
0.0576
7.
369
0.4308
368
0.0360
367
0.0082
0.1152
365
[फा. सं. आर -25011/1/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
एस. के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th December , 2006
S. O. 5022.- Whereas by the notification of the Governrnent of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.number S.O. 2794 dated 18.07.2006 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) published in the Gazette of India dated 22.07.2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to Tehsil Maghnagar , Dist-Jhabua, State Madhya Pradesh , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ,
And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the general public on 24.08.2006
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 is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired,
Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline,
And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead ofvesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10803 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9, 1928
Schedule
District : - Jhabua
State: - Madhya pradesh Tehsil :- Meghnagar
Area in Hectore SLNo .
NameofVillage Survey No.
4
3
2
1
0.0252
100
1
Dadhaniya
0.2412
101
0.0210
102
0.1224
79
0.0220
77
0.0072
80
01040
76
0.1450
75
0.2088
183
2
Meghanagar
0.2156
180
182
0.0162
0.2592
125
0.0018
126
0.0720
123/1
0.1440
122/1
0.0210
122/2
0.2880
117
0.3672
105/1/2
0.1448
105/2
0.0080
106
107
0.1800
0.0140
89
0.1520
86
0.2808
85
0.3816
63
0.2304
62
0.0166
1
31
0.0756
3
Nawapada Dhanna
32
0.0012
0.0090
257
4
Bedawali
0.0015
255
0.0315
256
0.0420
256/637
0.0720
230
0.0020
258
0.0087
262
260
0.0630
3916GI/06-14 10804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
3
1
2
4
4
Bedawali Con ...
259
0.0490
261
0.0101
266
0.0210
332
0.0424
331
0.0110
330
0.0744
333
0.0280
327
0.0540
336
0.1008
326
0.0144
325
0.0280
324
0.0480
323
0.0104
368
0.0584
369
0.0152
367
0.0490
366
0.0491
377
0.0498
365
0.0630
364
0.0560
363
0.1440
406
0.0144
0.1728
407/2
536
0.0420
537
0.0015
407/3
0.0020
535
0.0030
534
0.0280
531/5
0.0348
531/6
0.0320
531/7
0.0560
0.0140
531/8
531/10
0.0790
531/15
0.0630
0.0428
531/16
531/17
0.0348
531/14
0.0080
527
0.0896
0.0015
528
526
0.0256
4 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10805
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
3
2
524 Bedawali Con ...
571
566
570
569
572/2
580
581
582
603/1
603/2
603/3
603/4
603/644
605
604/2
604/5
604/1
620
621
625
626
627
624
230/2 5
Naugawa
230/1
231
233
234
232
276
278
277
280
281
282
283
284
289
290 4
0.0140
0.0838
0.0212
0.0630
0.1296
0.0100
0.3600
0.1296
0.0144
0.1980
0.1800
0.1764
0.1080
0.0900
010348
0.1260
0.0840
0.0844
0.1600
0.2808
010520
0.0208
010800
0.0135
0.0240
0.1080
0.2052
0.1154
0.0504
0.1252
0.0180
0.2160
0.0288
0.0108
0.0082
0.0936
0.0540
0.0648
0.1008
0.1296 10806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
2
3
293 Naugawa Con .....
294
298
378
131
Guda Choota
132
133
134
135
139
140
142
145
128
18
17 7
Mahuda
169
170
168
1
167
166
165
176
177/1
178
179
180/1
189
478
479
480
481
483
484
462
485
440
439
438 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 4
0.0720
0.0721
0.0810
0.0792
0.1512
0.0540
0.0082
0.0360
0.1384
0.0240
0.0696
0.0050
0.3312
0.0102
0.3942
0.2184
0.1008
0.0324
0.0125
0.2592
0.0252
0.1296
0.0720
0.0792
0.0468
0.0216
0.0468
0.1368
0.1872
0.0864
0.0144
0.1800
0.1224
0.0936
0.1188
0.0720
0.0252
0.1008
0.1368
0.1080 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
10807 2
3
4
7
MahudaConte..
433
0.0180
434
0.1368
432
0.0252
430
0.2080
429
0.0576
369
0.4308
368
0.0360
367
0.0082
365
0.1152
[F. No. R -25011 /1 /2006- O.R. - 1 ] S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy .
नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 5023.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र. तारीख 22.07.06 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का आ. 2795 तारीख 18.07.2006 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील बाजना जिला रतलाम राज्य मध्यप्रदेश में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।
और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 24.08.2006 से जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;
अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा । [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10808
अनुसूचि
राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश
जिला
रतलाम
तहसील -बाजना
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में
सर्वे नम्बर
गाँव का नाम
क्रमाक
4
3
2
1
0.1922
267
जाबड.
1
0.1728
268
0.3888
284
0.0216
282
0.1944
285
[फा. सं. आर-25011/2/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ]
एस . के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th December , 2006
S. O. 5023.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.number S.O. 2795 dated 18.07.2006 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) published in the Gazette of India dated 22.07.2006, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to Tehsil Bajna , Dist-Ratlam , State Madhya Pradesh , for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products frorn Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the general public on 24.08.2006
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 is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired,
Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline,
And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead ofvesting in the Central Government, vest from the date ofthe publication ofthis declaration inthe Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .
10809 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
Schedule
District:- Ratlam
State :- Madhyapradesh Tehsil : - Bajna
AREA IN HECTORE
SURVEY NO
Nameof Village
SL.NO.
4
3
2
1
0.1922
267
Jabod
1
0.1728
268
0.3888
284
0.0216
282
0.1944
285
[F. No. R -25011/2/2006-O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 5024.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 22.07.2006 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का आ. 2796 तारीख 18.07.2006 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि तहसील रतलाम जिला रतलाम राज्य मध्यप्रदेश में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिये उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।
नता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ; और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 24.08.2006 से जनता
और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;
और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए ;
अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूचि में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में 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 निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।
:
10810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ]
अनुसूचि
जिला रतलाम
राज्य मध्य प्रदेश रतलाम
तहसील
सर्वे नम्बर
क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर मे गॉव का नाम
कमांक
4
3
2
1
10/1/1/45
0.0171
1
धबई पाड़ा
163/2
0.0843
2
जुलवानिया
151
0.1800
156
0.0540
152
0.1445
83/1/4
0.0080
3
नन्दलाई
234
0.0140
238
0.1080
235
0.2736
236
0.1656
222/1
0.5902
222/9
0.0252
222/7
0.0108
222/6
0.2520
222/4
0.2100
220
0.1800
220/242/2
0.1584
220/242/1
0.2592
218
00648
213
0.0080
200/1/2
0.0648
200/1/1
0.1040
4
बंजली
3/1
0.1764
4
0.2160
16
0.0140
17
0.0764
14
0.0720
12
0.2160
10
0.1980
8/3
0.0252
8/2
0.0015
8/2/5
0.2220
25/2
0.0980
29/1
0.1188
24
0.2952
26
0.0288
50/1
0.4320
50/2
0.0040
बजली निरन्तर
46/1
0.0936
46/2
0.0612 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10811
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
1
2
3
4
5
बांगरोद
1402/1629
0.0144
1377/1628
0.0597
1441
0.2609
712/5
0.1735
700
0.2376
699
0.3420
[फा. सं. आर-25011/2/ 2006- ओ.आर. -1 ]
एस. के. चितकारा , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 19th December , 2006
S. O. 5024. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.number S.O. 2796 dated 18.07.2006 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) published in the Gazette of India dated 22.07.2006, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to Tehsil Ratlam , Dist- Ratlam , State Madhya Pradesh , for the purpose oflaying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Products from Koyali to Ratlam in the State of Madhya Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the general public on 24.08.2006
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 is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired,
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of the section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline ,
And further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4 ) of section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby direct that the right of user in the said land shall instead ofvesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of the publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .
Schedule
Tehsil : - Ratlam
State :-Madhya pradesh
District: - Ratlam
Area in Hectore
Survey No.
SL. NO .
Nameof Village
3
4
2
1
0.0171
10/1/1/45
1
Dhabaipara
163/2
0.0843 2
Julwaniya
0.1800
151
156
0.0540
0.1445
152
3916 GI/06-15 10812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
1
2
3 3
Nandlai
83/1/4
234
238
235
236
222/1
222/9
222/7
222/6
222/4
220
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
4
0.0080
0.0140
0.1080
0.2736
0.1656
0.5902
0.0252
0.0108
0.2520
0.2100
0.1800
220/242/2
220/242/1
218
213 0.1584
0.2592
.00648
0.0080
200/1/2
0.0648
200/1/1
4
3/1
Banjali
4
16
17
14
12
10
8/3
8/2
8/2/5
25/2
29/1
24
26
50/1
50/2 Banjali Contd .......
46/1
46/2 5
0.1040
0.1764
0.2160
0.0140
0.0764
0.0720
0.2160
0.1980
0.0252
0.0015
0.2220
0.0980
0.1188
0.2952
0.0288
0.4320
0.0040
0.0936
0.0612
1402/1629
Bangrod,
0.0144
1377/1628
1441
712/5
700
699 0.0597
0.2609
0.1735
0.2376
0.3420
[F. No. R -25011 /2/2006- O.R. - I ]
S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5025.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 193 से 216/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30012/60/1996- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 1st December , 2006 S.O. 5025. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 193 to 216/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , and their workmen which was received by the Central Govemment on 1-12-2006.
[No. L- 30012/60/1996- IR (C - I) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present:
Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , L.L.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 17th day of November , 2006/26th Kartika, 1928 ) I. D. 193/2006
&
I.D. 194/2006 to 216 of 2006 I.D. 193/2006
(I.D. 26/97 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam)
C.J. James
Workınan :
Chakkalakkal House Kadavanthra
Kochi -682 020 .
Management : 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
10813
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
2. Shri E.T. Joseph
Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva -683001 .
I.D. 194/2006
(I.D. 27/97 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Workman : C.K. Kunjachan Charuparambil Kadungamangalam Thiruvankulam.
Management : 1. The Dy . General Manager ( LPG) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600-034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva:
LD. 195/2006
(I.D. 28/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam ) Workman:
T.K. Appu Vadayanadu House Eroor South , Eroor, Ermalalam District .
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager ( LPG ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple RoadAlva .
I.D. 196/2006
(I.D. 29/97 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Workman:
1. K. K. Chandran Kuzhikkattil House Kizhakkambalam Thamarachal kara
Management: 1.The Dy. General Manager (LPG) IndianOilCorporation Ltd. , 139 , Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034 .
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, TempleRoad Aluva.
10814
I.D. 197/2006
( I.D. 30/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
C.K. Kandappan(Died)
Legal hiers impleaded as per order in IA..... /06 on8-11-2006 .
1. Thankamma, W/ o Late C.K. Kandappan Kotharipparambu , Thiruvankulam P.O.
2. Sunil , S/ o Late C.K. Kandappan Kotharipparambu, Thiruvankulam P.O.
3. Suni , D/ o Late C.K. Kandappan Kotharipparambu , Thiruvankulam P.O.
Management : 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil CorporationLtd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D. 198/2006
(I.D. 31/97 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
John Varghese Mannalil House KadavanthrAmbalamughal Ernakulam
Management: 1. The Dy . Gencral Manager (LPG )
IndianOil Corporation Ltd. 139 , Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034 .
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally , Temple Road Aluva .
I.D. 199/2006
( I.D. 32/97 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Workman:
K.K. Rajan Kuzhikkattil House , Kaninad Ernakulam.
Management: 1. The Dy . General Manager (LPG ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva .
I.D. 200/2006
(I.D. 33/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
E.N. Kuttapan Edavana House Ambalamughal P.O. Ernakulam District .
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG ) Indian Oil CorporationLtd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally , Temple Road Aluva .
I.D. 201/2006
(I.D. 34/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
N.A. Kochal (Died)
Legal hiers impleaded as per order dated 25-2-2004 Workman:
1. Saradha, W/ o Late N.A. Kockal Nechikkattukuzhi Ambalamedu P.O. Kuzheekadukara -682 303 .
2.Manjusha, D/ o Late N. A. Kockal Nechikkattukuzhi Ambalamedu P.O. Kuzheekadukara -682 303
Management: 1. The Dy . General Manager ( LPG ) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600 034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Alampally, Temple Road Aluva. Contractor
I.D. 202/2006
(I.D. 35/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.C. Raghavan Manakakuzhi Karott House Ambalamughal Ernakulam District .
Management: 1. The Dy .General Manager ( LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. , 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034 .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, TempleRoad Aluva .
I.D. 203/2006
(I.D. 36/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
B. Rajan, Bhaskaran Colony Irumpanam, ErnakulamDistrict.
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D. 204/2006
(I.D. 37/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.A. Narayanan Thiruvankulam P.O. Karuttedathu, Molathu Ernakulam District.
Management: 1. The Dy . General Manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. 139, NungambakkamHigh Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva. I.D. 205/2006
(I.D. 39/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.V. Unni , Manakkaparambil House, Maradu Ernakulam -682304.
Management:
IndianOil CorporationLtd. 1.TheDy.General Manager (LPG) 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E. T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
ID 206/2006
(I.D. 38/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.A. Velayudhan Mangalassery House Thiruvankulam Ernakulam District.
10815
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) Management:
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139 , Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E. T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D. 207/2006
(I.D.40/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.A. Thomas Marikkarichira Arthunkal P. O. Cherthala, Alapuzha District
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D.208/2006
(I.D. 41/97 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.P. Varghese Mazhavanaparambil Ambalamughal P.O. Ernakulam District.
Management: 1. TheDy. General Manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. , 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034. 2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D. 209/2006
(I.D. 42/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
P.D. Babu KadayilHouse Ambunadu Edathala Ernakulam District.
Management: I. The Dy. General Manager (LPG ) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Rond. Chennai -600034. 2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Rund Aluva.
10816
I.D. 210/2006
( L.D. 43/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
M.K. Yohanan Mullayil House Ambalamughal Ernakulam District
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager ( LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. , 139 , Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
4. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D. 211/2006
(1.D. 44/97 of Labour Court, Ermakulam) Workman:
P.R. Ravi (Died)
Legal hiers impleaded as per order dated 8-8-2001 Addl . Claimants:
Workman:
1.Radha , W/o Late P.R. Ravi Palliparambil House KadungamangalamP.O. Thiruvankulam .
2.Rajesh , S/ o Late P.R. Ravi Palliparambil House Kadungamangalam P.O. Thiruvankulam .
Management : 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. , 139 , Nungambakkam High Road Chennai - 600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
I.D.212/2006
(I.D. 45/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
K.M. Joseph Kottiyathu House Irunpanam North Ernakulam District.
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager ( LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600 034. 2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
I.D. 213/2006
(I.D.46/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
Chambomthuruthil C.V.Joy Chithrapůzha, Irumpanam Ernakulam District.
Management: 1. The Dy. General Manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. 139. Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva .
I.D. 214/2006
(I.D. 47/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) Workman:
K.T. Chandran (Died)
Legal hiers impleaded as per order dated 8.8.2001 as Add. Claimants:
1. Ammini Chandran, W/ o Late K.T. Chandran Kurutharaparambil (H ) Kambi velikkakom Thiruvankulam P.O. Ernakulam District.
2. Anil K. Chandran , S/ o Late K.T. Chandran Kurutharaparambil (H) Kambi velikkakom Thiruvankulam P.O. Ernakulam District.
3. Ajeesh K. Chandran , S/o Late K.T. Chandran Kurutharaparambil (H) Kambi velikkakom Thiruvankulam P.O. Ernakulam District .
4. Arun K Chandran, S/o Late K.T. Chandran Kurutharaparambil (H) Kambivelikkakom ThiruvankulamP.O. Ernakulam District.
Management: 1. The Dy. General manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. , 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10817 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
I.D. 215/2006
3. The facts in brief are as follows:
(I.D.48/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)
Workman:
E.S. Damodharan Pillai Thykkattu House PalluruthyNada Kochi -682006 .
Management: I. The Dy .General Manager (LPG) IndianOil Corporation Ltd. , 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva . I.D. 216/2006
(I.D.49/97 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)
Workman:
C.K. Sasi Chakkuparambu House CharuvuparambilHouse Kadungamangalam -682305 .
Managenent : 1. The Dy . General Manager (LPG) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai -600034.
2. Shri E.T. Joseph Contractor Alampally, Temple Road Aluva.
Representations :
Workman
: Adv . Shri A.V. Xavier
: Adv . M/ s . Menon & Pai
IstManagement
2nd Management : Adv . M/s . B.S. Krishnan Associates AWARD
These are references made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication . The references in these cases are common. As per an order in M.P.7/2006 filed in I.D. 193/2006 joint trial was ordered and I.D. 193/2006 is treated as the main case in which evidence was adduced. The original reference was:
"Whether the action of Shri E.T. Joseph in terminating the employment of Sri C.J. James was Icgal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? "
2. There was a corrigendum as per which the reference stands amended as follows:
"Whether the action of Indian Oil Corporation and their sub- contractors Shri E.T. Joseph in terminating the employment of Shri C.T. James was legal and justified? If not,to what relief is the workman en- titled?"
Theworkers inall these 23 cases along with 10 others were working in the bottling plant of Cochin Refineries Ltd. Ambalamughal doing the work of LPG cylinder handling.Marketing is an integral part of business of CRL . Loading and unloading of LPG cylinders in the factory premises of CRL is incidental to the marketing activities. The work is perenni al in nature and done on a regular basis . According to the union instead of carrying on the loading and unloading work by CRL directly they entrusted the work to IOC. The job entrusted is handling , loading and unloading , transporting, repair and maintenance of LPG cylinders . That work is given on contract basis to IOC. The IOC in turn entrusted the work of loading and unloading and other transporting work to different sub -contractors . The second management, Shri E.T. Joseph is entrusted with the work of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders by IOC . This arrangement is nothing but exploitation of labour . Though sub- contractors were changed from time to time the workers continued without any change orbreak in service. The union made a representation to the Chairman of State Advisory Contract Labour Board, Thiruvananthapuram requesting to take steps to issue notification prohibiting contract labour at LPG Bottling Plant, Ambalamughal . Though the sub-committee of the Advisory Board visited the plant and studied the situation nothing was heard of the outcome till date . Meanwhile the union has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P.6422/85 with regard to payment of Employees Provident Fund . There was an order directing IOC to comply with the provisions ofEPF Act . While so, the CRL decided to close. down the bottling plant at Ambalamughal and installed a new plant at Udayamperoor . During the inter regnum the marketing activities were carried on from other bottling plants of CRL . The plant at Udayamperoor started in January , 1994. But the workers in these cases were not taken back by the management . Out of 34 workers in the loading and unloading section , only 10 were taken back by the management when the new plant at Udayamperoor was started. At the same time 50 locals were taken for loading and unloading work . The workers were not given notice of olosure or compensation . There was equally no notice of any lay off or compensation for the same . There was a conciliation talk in the presence of Sub- Collector to sort out thedispute of locals for employment in the new plant . In the proceedings the Sub- Collector directed the management to take back 10 out of 34 old workers in the loading and unloading section along with 50 locals . These proceedings were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court by the union in O.P.15988/93 and the proceedings were stayed on 23-11-1993 and it is pending . Even the 10 old workers were taken disregarding the seniority of workers . The action of the management is illegal and the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with back wages . There was a further statement by the workman by way of 10818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
ment for loading and unloading work was terminated . The IOC has not retrenched any of the workers . The question ofclosure of establishment also does not arise . The IOC has never interfered with the employment of workers un- derShri E.T. Joseph. The IOC is not aware of the seniority ofworkers under Shri E.T. Joseph. No reliefs can be claimed against IOC . The IOC had also filed an additional counter statement stating that the IOC and other similar companies usedtobuy filled LPG cylinders from Cochin Refineries for the purpose of marketing . For safety reasons the bottling plant at Ambalamughal was closed and later a new plant was started at Udayamperoor . The 1st management had never employed any of the workers in these cases . The IOC is an unnecessary party . There are other necessary parties like other workers under the 2nd management and similar contractors, without those persons an effective ad- judication of the dispute is not possible . The IOC has not terminated the services of any of the workers .
reply to the written statement that the workers were not terminated by the management. The contention of 2nd management that there was a memorandum of settlement between the contractor and the union regarding service conditions is incorrect and is a fabricated story . There was no such settlement at any point of time . Only such a contention is taken by the 2nd management after the reference. The employment of the workers was to carry out the contract work of 1st management though the workers were engaged through sub- contractors . The 1st management had registered its establishment, under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act and its sub - contractors have taken licences to employ workmen for their contract work . Therefore the 1st management is liable to pay the statutory benefits of the workmen on failure of sub- contractors . The workers were not employed by sub - contractors for any specific period. The workers have the right to get employed under the successive sub- contractors like 2nd management. Therefore the right to employment did not cease after 30-6-1993 . The workers have every right to raise an industrial dispute. Sinee the workmen were on continuous service under successive of sub - contractors Ist management they are entitled to get gratuity. That liability has to be shouldered by 1st management in case of failure of 2nd management. For the statutory benefits such as ESI , PF, etc. the 1st management is liable . The workers were raising dispute and demand for employment ever since 30.6.1993. The proceedings before Sub-Collector and writ petition filedbefore Hon'ble High Court of Kerala are ins- tances of demand of workers for employment . Therefore , there is no delay in raising industrial dispute . The first management is a necessary party in the nature of dispute. There is employer - employee relationship between IOC and workmen . The 2nd management is made a party as he was the immediate employer at the time of disengagement of workers.
5. The 2nd management, Shri E.T. Joseph filed a written statement contending that the workmen were engaged for loading and unloading work in the bottling plantof CRL for the last many years . These workers were working under many contractors who were engaged by IOC from time to time . The 2nd management was given contract of loading and unloading work from 1-4-1988 to 30-6-1993 with a break from 1-7-1990 to 31-3-1992 . There was a memorandum of settlement between workers and 2nd management regarding service conditions . The last of such settlement was on 12-1-1993 . The settlement was in force up to 30-6-1993 . One of the clauses in the settlement provides that the contract period will expire by 30-6-1993 and no further notice will be given to workers regarding discontinuance of the workers . The 2nd management has paid all legal dues to the workers during the period of work. Since there was no further contract after 30-6-1993 the 2nd management was not able to engage the workers . They cease tobe employees of 2nd management on completion ofcontract work on 30-6-1993 . There was no assurance to give employment to the workers in the new plant as it depended upon contract being given by IOC to the 2nd management . Only from 1-11-1994 2nd management was given contract . work at Udayamperoor . The 2nd managementwas not a party to the conciliation proceedings before Sub -Collector. The 2nd management has not denied employment tothe workers . The workers are not entitledto any relief.
6. In the light of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration :
( 1) Whether there is a valid reference ?
(2) Is the claim stale or barred by limitation ?
(3) Are the claimants the employees of 1st management or 2nd management ?
(4) Whether there is termination of service ? If so , isit legal ?
4. The 1st management (IOC) filed counter statement contending that the reference is not maintainable . There is no relationship between IOC and workmen . The workmen are the employees of Shri E.T. Joseph . There cannot be any industrial dispute with IOC. It is a Government of India Undertaking and is engaged in marketing petroleum prod- ucts . The Cochin Refineries Limited fills up LPG cylinders inside their premises and the same are marketed by IOC. The IOC had entered into a contract with Shri E.T. Joseph forthe purpose of loading and unloading of LPG cylinders from the premises of CRL to vehicles . As such, Shri E. T. Joseph had appointed workers and he had paid them their wages . Shri E.T. Joseph had control and supervision over the work done by the workers engaged for loading and unloading . There was no employer- employee relationship between IOC and workmen . Since CRL decided to stop its bottling plant at Ambalamughal and start a new plant at Udayamperoor, the contract between 1st and 2nd manage- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
(5) Are the workers entitled for reinstatement ?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW1 and documentary evidence of Exts . W1 to 6 on the side of workmen and MW1 and Exts . M1 to 13 on the side of management .
7. Point No. (1):
According to the 1st management IOC the workers were not employed by them or terminated by them. They contend that the workers are the employees of the 2nd management contractor . Therefore , according to the 1st management there is no industrial dispute between IOC and workers . According to the 2nd management contractor the workers were engaged by him and not hy the 1st management. The contract of 2nd management came to an end by 30-6-1993 . So also the settlement between the 2nd management and the workers regarding service conditions also came to an end by 30-6-1993. Hence the workers have no right for further employment . Therefore according to the management there is no industrial dispute between workers and the management . Though there is a prayer hy 1st management to consider this point as a preliminary issue, since the file was received by this court after evidence was recorded, I propose to consider this issue along with other issues in this case .
8. It is anadmitted fact that the workers were engaged by the 2nd management contractor, Shri E.T. Joseph and not hy IOC. But the contention of workers is that though they were engaged by the contractor , 2nd management they were controlled and supervised by the 1st management, IOC . Hence the 1st management is the real employer. However, the evidence regarding control and supervision by the 1st management is lacking in this case and the evidence part of the aspect will be dealt with later under the concerned point . But suffice to say that unless the workers are able to prove that the 1st management exercised control and supervision and the workers were treated by the 1st management as their own employees , they cannot be considered as ' workmen' within the definition of S-2 ( s) of L.D. Act. If there is no relationship of employer- employee between the 1st management and workers the latter would not fall under the definition of 'workman' . Such relationship is not proved by the workers in this case . Besides they should be employed by an employer in an industry.
InIOCLtd. v. P.O. , CGIT, Guwahati 2005 II - L.L.J.850 a dispute arose as to whether the closure of LPG Plant of IOC and consequent termination by the concerned contractor of the service of his workmen was legal and proper? Itwas held by Guwahati High Court that the workers in the case were not the employees of IOC, but of contractor. It is found that there is no employer-employee relationship between IOC and workers . Hence they are not workmen defined in S-2 (S) of I.D. Act and there can be no ' industrial dispute' referable to Industrial Tribunal . The facts of the 3916GI/06-16
10819
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
reported case apply on all fours to the facts of the disputed case. Paragraphs 15 & 22 are relevant . They read:
"15. In the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, labourers employed by the contractor in the bottlingplant of Indian Oil Corporation seeking regularization of their services agitated the matter that they were employed by the Indian Oil Corporation in the bottling plant . A reference was made as to whether the action ofthe management of Indian Oil Corporation in not regularising the services of the contractual workers was justified . The Division benchheld that in absence of any relationship of employer and employee as explicit on the face ofthe reference, the dispute could not be brought within the fold of' Industrial Dispute' . as defined in Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
22. Above being the position which has emerged onthe basis of factual and legal aspect of the matter, the issue raised in the present writ proceeding and as formulated above is liable to be answered in the negative against the respondents . The petitioner succeeds on both counts, viz . ( i ) there cannot be a reference raising an industrial dispute based on the closure of the LPG bottling plant in question which position is also admitted by the respondents and (ii ) the respondents being not within the definition of workmen untler the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , no dispute can arise between the petitioner and the said respondents relating to the issue raised, they being the employees of the respondents No.24 . Consequently the impugned order of reference datedMay 19 , 2000 issued by the respondent No.2 stands set aside and quashed. This will however, not preclude the respondents in seeking their remedy under the provisions of Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Rules framed thereunder , if available to them and if so advised . " The decision in IOC Limited v . P.O. , Industrial Tribunal , Assam 1999 II - L.L.J 904 was rendered in a writ appeal . The appellant was the IOC. The dispute referredto the Industrial Tribunal was ' whether demand of workers employed by a contractor of IOC for regularisation was justified or not' . It was held by the Division bench of Guwahati High Court that there was no employer-employee relationship between lac and the contract workers and so the dispute could not be brought within the definition of 'Industrial Dispute' in S - 2 (k) of Industrial Disputes Act . The remedy was to move the Government to abolish the contract labour.
10820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
employees were not ' workmen' within the definition of S -2 (s) ofLD. Act . Therefore the industrial adjudication on a reference u/ s - 10 ( 1 ) of the Act was not permissible . It is further observed that since the canteen was a statutory canteen, the workers could approach the Administrative Tribunal u/s -19 of Administrative Tribunal Act or High Court under Art . 226 of the Constitution .
The position that emerges from decisions aforementioned is that unless the contract workers are proved to be 'workmen ' within S - 2 (s ) of I.D. Act they cannot raise an industrial dispute and no valid reference canbemade by Government to an Industrial Tribunal .
In K.K. Thilakan v . FACT Ltd. 1991 II -L.L.N . 1161 the workers were employed by a contractor who were entrusted with the work connected with the manufacturing process in Udhyogmandal Division of FACT . Consequent to the termination of contract between the contractor and FACT the contractor terminated the services of workers . The workers raised an industrial dispute regarding their absorption in service . The Labour Court passed an award directing FACT to reinstate the workmen with back wages and continuity of service . The matter was challenged before Hon'bleHigh Court and the award was quashed . On appeal to the Division Bench the matter was remanded to Labour Court to decide the dispute afresh . Thereafter an award was passed holding that the workmen do not have any legal right for regularization in FACT . That was challenged again by the workers . It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the workers were employed by the contractor and not by FACT . When the contract came to an end the workers became unemployed. However the workers were never comployed or engaged by FACT. They are not workers of FACT and their claim for absorption cannot give rise to an industrial dispute as defined in S -2 ( K) of I.D. Act . Reference of such a dispute to Labour Court is not valid. It is further observed in para 9 of the judgement that FACT being a Public Sector Undertaking equal opportunity of employment should be given to all unemployed seeking cmployment . Backdoor entry like the one in dispute through the contractor, cannot be permitted . The engagement of workers under a contractor cannot confer on the workers any preferential claim for appointment in the service of principal employer .
9. However, the learned counsel for the workers relied on Hussain Bhai , Calicut v . The Alath. Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode ( 1978 ) 4 SCC 257. The factory ofHussain Bhai was manufacturing rope . A number of workmen were engaged to make rope . But the workers were supplied by contractors . The contractors had agreements with the factory owner . Some of the workers were denied employment and an industrial dispute was raised . The dispute was whether the workmen were the workmen of principal employer or those of the contractor . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the work done by the workmen wasan integral part of the industry as the materials were supplied by the management, the place of work belonged to the management, the equipments used belonged to the management and the finished goods were taken by the management for its own trade . The workmen were thus broadly under the control of the manageinent . The Court held that these circumstances are conclusive proof that the workmen were really the workmen of the factory and not of the contractors . It is to be noted that in the decided case there was sufficient evidence to show that though the workmen were engaged by the contractor there was control and supervision by the factory and hence there was employer employee relationship between the factory and the workers . However , in the instant case the position is not the same. The work of employees engaged by the contractor Shri E.T. Joseph was loading and unloading of LPG cylinders into trucks and from the trucks . There is no evidence to show that IOC had given any direction to the workers or exercised control or supervision at any point of time.Merelybecause loading and unloading work was done in the premises of IOC or CRL, will not confer any right on the workmen or create any relationship with the principal employer.
Inthe light ofwhat is stated above I find that there is no industrial dispute u/s -2 ( k ) of 1.D. Act which could be referred to this court .
10. Point No. (2) :
In COMINCO Binani Zinc Ltd. v . Pappachan 1989 ( 1 ) -KL T 6 the factory engaged a contractor to run a canteen. Workers were employed by the contractor . It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala that when the management entrusted the responsibility of running a canteen to an independent contractor or cooperative society of workers the workers employed and paid by such contractor , cannot be considered as workers of the factory . There is no- employer - cmployee relationship between the factory and such workmen . All claims of the workers are to be met by the contractor or the society , as the case may be . The employer ofthe . workers will be the contractor or the society and not the factory . The claim in that case was for payment of gratuity and hence it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that so far as payment of wages to the workers in the canteen are concerned, if the contractor fails, the factory is liable ultimately as per S - 21 (4) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. However the definition of wages in S -2 (rr ) of LD . Act or S -2 ( s) of Payment ofWages Act does not take in bonus or gratuity in its purvlew.
It is relevant to note the following decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court .
In Bombay Canteen Employees Assn . v. Union of India ( 1997) 6 SCC 723 it was held that the canteen
According to the management there is delay of more than 4 years in raising the industrial dispute . The services ofthe workmen were dispensed with on 30-6-1993 . The reference was made on 10-9-1997 . Therefore it is contended 10821 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
pleadings ( claim statement & reply statement) that the workers were supervised and controlled by the Ist management. No specific instances of such control or supervision are pointed out. So is the evidence . While MWI was cross -examined (page 15) he stated that filled LPG cylinders are taken from the Plant of CRL to the shed of CRL through contractors . The instruction for taking cylinders from the Plant to the shed is given to the contractor by IOC . In the place of loading and unloading of cylinders the officers of IOC would be present. To a question whether there was any arrangement to provide convenience either to the contractor or his supervisor to remain in the loading and unloading place , the witness answered that he is not aware . The only statement ofWWI . the worker at page 5 of the Chief Examination is that the workers are working under the supervision and control of theofficers of IOC . Nothing more is stated by him . This is not enough to say that there is supervision and control by the 1st management. The workers should point out what actually was the direction given; supervision made and the control exercised by IOC in the loading and unloading work. Admittedły, no appointment order was given by IOC. There is no agreement or memorandum of settlement between IOC and the workers regarding service conditions . The IOC has no authority to take any disciplinary action against the workers . Payment to workers is made, admittedly , by the contractor and not by IOC . No service benefits are given by IOC to the workers . However it was argued by the learned counsel for the workers on the basis of the order of Hon'bleHigh Court in O.P.6422/85 that IOC is the employer. The observation in that case was that the principa employer isultimately liable for payment of provident fund benefits to workers in case of failure of the contractor. Ext . WI is copy of judgment . It is to be noted that it is under the provisions of Employees ' Provident Funds and (Miscellaneous Provisions ) , Act, it was so held by the Hon'ble High Court . Thatdoes not mean that for all purposes and for liability under diferent statutes the principal employer is responsible .
by the management that the dispute raised has become stale and barred by limitation . In paragraphs 7 of the claim statement of the worker in I.D.193/2006 and similar statements in other cases, it is mentioned that the workers were demanding employment in the new plant at Udayamperoor from the time their services were terminated on 30-6-1993 . They waited for many months to hear from the management . Meanwhile the local people of Udayamperoor raised protest demanding employment . The Sub - Collector of Cochin conducted conciliation proceedings between the unions of workers , management and locals . A proceeding was drawn by the Sub- Collector by which it was decided to take back 10 out of 34 loading and unloading workers who were working under the 2nd management previously and 50 locals . This was challenged by union before Hon'ble High Court and the proceeding of Sub-Collector was stayed. It was thereafter that an industrial dispute was raised by the workers before ALC ( C) on 30-5-1995 . The conciliation failed and a failure report was sent by ALC ( C) to Government on 30-4-1996 . Ext . W6 is the failure report . It is no doubt true that there is no record to show that the workers had demanded employment at Udayamperoor plant, except the complaint to ALC (C ) in 1995. But at least on 30-5-1995 the workers had raised an industrial dispute before ALC( C) which culminated in Ext . W6 failure report. Therefore at the most there is a delay of 2years in raising a dispute after termination of the service ofworkers . But, if the mediation of Sub- Collector is taken into account it could be said that there is no delay at all. Assuming that there is a delay of2 years in raising industrial dispute , it cannot be said that the dispute is either barred by limitation or claim is stale or the delay is inordinate . In the decision reported in Ajaib Singh v . Sirhind Coop . Marketing -cum Processing S.S. Ltd. ( 1999) 6 SCC82 = ( 1999) II -L.L.N . 674 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under 1.D. Act and Art. 137 of Limitation Act is not attracted in such proceedings . Apart from that , the management has no case that they are put to any inconvenience due to the delay, in tracing out records for the purpose of effectively defending the case . In the circumstances I find that there is no delay in raising the dispute .
11. Point No. (3) :
This is the crucial issue in the case . The 1st and 2nd management contend that the workers are contract workers of the 2nd management contractor and not of 1st management IOC. Whereas the workers contend that , though they were engaged by successive contractors they were supervised and controlled throughout by IOC and that there is continuity of service irrespective of change of contractors . Some of them have put in 20 years ' service . Therefore, according to them IOC is the real employer .
13. It is true that the nature of work; that is , loading and unloading of LPG cylinders , is a regular work and is perennial in nature . But that also does not mean that the workers are the employees of IOC . A relationship of master and servant or employer and employee is to be established in order to say that the real employer is IOC and not contractor . The workers had continued for many years under different contractors . This need not be at the direction of IOC . The successive contractors might have felt that experienced workers would be better than fresh hands . Thus they might have preferred the workers who were with the previous contractors . However , the status of the workers as contractual workers never changed. The place ofwork is also not material in determining the relationship betweenthe parties (Punjab Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. v . State of U.P. (1960) I - L.LJ . 756 (All. ) (DB ) .
12. To show that the work is supervised and controlled by IOC the pleading is inadequate and evidence is insufficient . There is only a sweeping statement in the 10822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
16. So far as the present case is concerned, the contract system is not prohibited by notification and the relationship of master and servant is not established and hence the workers are to be found to be the workers of contractor and not of IOC .
17. Point No. (4) :
14. That apart , it is admitted by the workers in the reply statement dated 11-10-1999 that IOC had registered its establishment under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act and its sub - contractors had taken licences to employ workmen for their contract work . In view of this pleading of the workers it follows that the contractors had every right to employ workers under them for carrying out the work of the principal employer . Section 7 of the CLRA Act speaks about registration of the establishment. Section 9 says that no principal employer shall employ contract labour without registration . Section 10 speaks about prohibition of employment of contract by the concerned Governmentby issuing a notification to that effect in respect of any establishment . Even if the nature of contract labour is perennial in nature the Government is empowered, if required , to prohibit contract labour by notification. So long as the employment of contract labour is not prohibited by the Government by notification, the workers cannot say that they are workers of the principal employer . Apart from that , there is no evidence to show relationship of employer - employee between ICC and the workers . It is appropriate to note the observation in IOC Ltd. v . P.O. , I.T. Assam 1999 II - L.LJ 904 referred supra that the remedy of contract workers is to get the contract labour prohibited by a notification by the Government u/ s - 1 () of CLRA Act . Before that, a contract labourer cannot claim or be treated as worker of the principal employer .
15. It is relevant in this context to refer to ' Workmen ' of Food Corporation of India v . Food Corporation of India (1985) 2 1..1.J . 4 at page 9. It is a 3 - Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court . In that case the Food Corporation had engaged a contractor for handling food grains at its Silliguri depot . But the Corporation had nothing to do with the manner of handling of food grains by the workers of contractor . The labour was employed by the contractor and paymer ts were made by him . It was held that there was no previty of contract of employment between Food Corporation and the workmen . It was further observed that the expression' employed' in the definition of ' workman' n/s - 2 ( S ) of ID. Act connotes a relation brought about by express or implied contract of service in which the employee renders service for which he is engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind. The essential condition of a person being workman within the terms of definition of 'workman' is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry and there should be an employment of his by the employer and there should be relationship between the employer and him as between employer and employce or master and servant . Unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his being a ' workman' within the definition of S - 2 ( S ) of the Act . When the contract system was in vogue , the workmen employed by the contractor were certainly not the workmen of the corporation .
Admittedly, no termination order was issued either by IOC or contractor to the workers . What really happened wasthat the Cochin Refinery Limited decided to close down its bottling plant at Ambalamughal and install a new plant atUdayamperoor. The work at Ambalamughal was stopped on 1-7-1993 . Consequently the contract workers were denied employment . When the new plant was started at Udayamperoor in January, 1994 these workers were not taken back. According to the management the decision to stop the bottling Plant at Ambalamughal was taken by CRL and not by IOC . The contract period of 2nd management contractor came to an end by 30-6-1993 and consequently services of the workers too had come to an automatic end on the expiry of the period of contract . The date of stoppage of plant and the date of expiry of the contract period between IOC and the contractor was only a coincidence . According to the management the workers on expiry of the period of contract can no longer demand employment either under the contractor or under IOC . Ext . M10 is a letter of IOC to the contractor E.T. Joseph awarding contract for the period from 1-1-1993 to30-6-1993 with an option to extend the period of contract as per the terms of agreement . Ext . M9 is a letter to the Inspector of O/0 RLC(C) , Ernakulam issued by IOC intimating that the contract work entrusted to Shri E.T. Joseph was completed on 30-6-1993 . Ext. M3 is a settlement dated 12-1-1993 between Shri E.T. Joseph and the workers in these cases . Clause 18 of the Settlement refers to the period of settlement . It expired on 30-6-1993 as the contract between IOC and contractor expired on the same date . The decision ofCRLto stop the Plant at Ambalamughal was also on the same day. By reason of stoppage or closing down ofPlant , the workers under the contractor cannot claim that it amounts to termination or retrenchment of workers . I have already found that they are not the workers of IOC, but only the workers of the contractor . The contract workers do not get any right for continuance in service on the expiry of the period of contract . Since they are not workers ofIOC there is no question of termination or retrenchment by IOC. So also , there is no retrenchment by the contractor as the period of contract had come to an end and the contract was not renewed thereafter. There is no illegality in stopping the services of the workers on the expiry of the period of contract since they are contract workers . There is neither retrenchment nor layoff nor closure in the instant case . Section 2 ( oo) defines retrenchment which is termination of service of workman by the employer for any reason whatsoever , but does not include termination as a result of non- renewal of contract of employment between 10823 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
that be, I have already found that there is no termination and even if there is termination it is not illegal . Therefore no question of granting any relief also arises .
20. In the result, a common award is passed finding that there is no illegal termination and the action of IOC and Contractor E.T. Joseph which resulted in stoppage of work of the workmen in these cases , is legal and justified. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. No cost . The awardwill take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette . Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 17th day of November, 2006 .
P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX
Witness for the Workman :
WWI - Shri C.V. Joy
Witness for the Management :
MW 1 - Shri Unnikrishnan C.P.
Exhibits for the Union :
WI- Photostat copy of Judgement dated 18-12-1986 in OP. 6422/1985 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
W2- Photostate copy of Form 6 -A regarding E.P.F.
W3 - Photostat copy of Identity Card No. 1857870 issued by ESIC to Jolin Varghese .
W4-Photostat copy of letter dated 31-7-1990 issued by BPC Ltd. to CEO .
employer and workman concerned on its expiry. Section 2 (kkk) defines lay off. It is failure or refusal or inability to give employment to workmen whose names are borne on the Muster Roll of the industrial establishment . I have already found that the workmen in these cases are not the workmenof the industrial establishment of 1st management 10C . They are only contract workers . Therefore no question of lay off also arises . Section 2(cc) defines closure . It is permanent closing down of a place of employment or part thereof. In these cases the place of employment was CRL . It was CRL who had decided to stop the Plant for a short period and start a new Plant at Udaymperoor . The new Plant was started after 6 months in January 1994. The workers in these cases were not employed by CRL . They are not parties either to this dispute . The workers have no relationship with CRL . Apart from that, even if the Plant was not closed down the contract period had come to an cnd and unless renewed the workers could not have continued under the contractor or any successive contractors. There was no obligation for the successive contractors to take the same workers for loading and unloading work. The workers were not able to show that there was any stipulation to that effect between IOC and the contractors who were engaged at different periods . Thus I find that there is no termination of service, in the sense that the stoppage of work had happened not at the instance of anyone of the managements (IOC or contractor) . Itwas only a natural consequence of the action of CRL and automatic end of service of contract workers and not a termination by either , IOC or contractor . Even if there is termination it is not illegal . The point is answered accordingly.
W5 - Statement of Service and Wage details of the workmen.
18. Point No. (5) :
W6 - Failure of Conciliation Report dated 30-4-1996.
Exhibits for the Management :
In the light of the aforesaid reasons I find that the workers are not entitled for reinstatement either under Contractor Shri E.T. Joseph or under IOC . Found accordingly.
MI- Photostat copy of letter dated 5-5-1988 issued by LPG Cylinder Workers ' Union to Shri E.T. Joseph, Contractor.
19. Point No. (6) :
M2- Photostat copy of letter dated 3-1-1992 issued by LPG Cylinder Workers ' Union to Shri E.T. Joseph, Contractor.
M3-Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 12-1-1993 .
M4-Photostat copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 25.7.1990 .
M5- Photostat copy of work order dated 4-4-1988 issued by IOC Ltd. to E.T. Joseph .
M6- Photostat copy of order of extension of contract dated 20-4-89 issued by IOC Ltd. to E. T. Joseph .
M7- Photostat copy of extension of work order dated 19-3-1990 issued by IOC Ltd. to E.T. Joseph .
I have already found under Point No. 4 that there is neither retrenchment nor lay off nor closure as defined under the provisions of I.D. Act. Under Section 21 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act if the contractor does not pay wages to the workers , the principal cmployer is answerable . But the workers have no case that any arrear of wages is due to them for the period they had worked under the contractor . The workers have no quarrel about provident fund benefits . As per S-4 of Payment of Gratuity Act, gratuity is paid to an employee on termination of service after rendering continuous service of not less than 5 years . The IOC is not the employer and the IOC has no liability to make provision for payment of gratuity . It is in evidence that the contract work of Shri E.T. Joseph was only for a periodof less than 4 years between 1-4-1988 to 1-7-1993 with a break from 1-7-1990 to 31-3-1992 . Whatever
M8- Photostat copy of letter awarding contract clated 4-12-1991 issued by IOC Ltd. E.T. Joseph .
10824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
M9 Photostat copy of Form VI.B regarding Notice of Completion of Contract Work.
M10 - Photostat copy of letter dated 31-12-1992 awarding contract issued by IOC Ltd. to E.T. Joseph .
M11-Photostat copy of letter dated 21-10-1994 awarding contract issued by IOC Ltd. to E.T. Joseph.
M12-Photostat copy of letter dated 29-11-1995 awarding contract issued by IOC Ltd. to E.T. Joseph .
M13 Photostat copy of order dated 23-11-1993 in C.P. 29107/93 in OP.15988/93 of the Hon'ble High Court ofKerala .
नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर , 2006
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )) For the Association
: Mr. R.B. Chavan, Adv . Shri Leo D'Souza, President State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai , dated the 20th day of November, 2006
AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short) vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi Order No. L- 11012 /93 /98 - IR (C- I) dated 28-2-2000 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :
मांग संख्या-1
का.आ. 5026.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डेल्टा एअर लाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -11012/93 /98- आई.आर. ( सी -1 ) ] " क्याडेल्टा एअरलाइंस एम्पलाईज एसोसिएशन की मांग कि सर्वश्री लियो डिसूजा , हवोवी मैथ्यूज ग्लैन डिसिल्वा एवं पी.पी. मिस्ती, जो कि पदोन्नत किए गए कर्मकारों से वरिष्ठ हैं को उच्चतर ग्रेड एवं वेतनमान दिया जाए उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि हां तो उक्त कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? "
मांग संख्या-2
अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st December, 2006
" क्याडेल्टा एअरलाइंस एम्पलाईज एसोसिएशन की मांग कि प्रबंधतंत्र कर्मकारों के कार्य के मूल्यांकन के लिए प्रस्तावित प्रोफार्मा का प्रयोग भारत में तब तक नहीं किया जाए जब तक इस विषय में यूनियन से विचार विमर्श एवं समझौता नहीं हो जाता , न्यायोचित है ? यदि हां तो इस संबंध में क्या निर्देश आवश्यक हैं ? "
मांग संख्या-3
S.O. 5026.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25 to 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Delta Air Lines and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 1-12-2006.
[No. L- 11012/93/ 1998 - IR ( C- I ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1
" क्याडेल्टा एअरलाइंस एम्पलाईज एसोसिएशन की मांग कि सर्वश्री रोडनी डिक्कुज , सिरीश अंमदवार एवं गोपाल अययजो कि पूर्व पदोन्नत कर्मकारों से वरिष्ठ सेल्स रिप्रेजेंटिव है , को पदोन्नत किया जाए सही एवं उचित है ? यदि हां तो उक्त कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? "
मांग संख्या-4
MUMBAI
PRESENT:
JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS
PresidingOfficer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT -25 OF2000 PARTIES
: Employers in relation to the
management of
M/s . Delta Airlines
AND
Their workmen .
APPEARANCES :
For the Management : Mr. G.S. Shetty, Adv .
" क्याडेल्टा एअरलाइंस एम्पलाईज एसोसिएशन की मांग कि प्रबंधतंत्र ओवरनाइट एक्सपेंस वापसी पर अतिरिक्त आय कर का भार स्वयं उठाए विधिवत् एवं न्यायोचित है ? यदि हां तो इस संबंध में क्या निर्देश आवश्यक हैं ? "
2. The matter came up for hearing today before me . The IInd Party has moved an application with a request that the IInd Party does not wish to prosecute the reference further in view of the fact that the parties have resolved the issued and hence the reference may be disposed of.
3. This application is not opposed to by the Advocate for the 1st Party.
10825
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
4. In this circumstance, the reference is dismissed.
5. An Award is made accordingly . JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5027. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जैट एअर लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -11012/58/2001-आई आर ( सी- I ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st December, 2006
S.O. 5027. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 86/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , New Delhi - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jet Air Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 1-12-2006.
[No. L- 11012/58/2001 - IR (C - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , NEW DELHI
I.D.NO. 86/2001
In the matter of:
Shri Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Rawali Ram, House No.406-B , Gali No.4, Sarpanch Wara ( Near Shiv Mandir ) Mandawali, Delhi -92
...Workman
Versus
Director (N.I. ) ,
Jet Air Limited,
JetAir House ,.
13 , Community Centre ,
Yusuf Sarai ,
NewDelhi
2. Vice President , JetAir Limited, Jet Air House , 13 , Community Centre , Yusuf Sarai ,
NewDelhi
APPEARANCES : None for the workman .
Mrs. Jyotica Bhasin, Advocate A/R for management. AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.L- 11012/58/2001 /I.R. (C- I ) dated 27-9-2001 has referredthe following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:
"Whether the action of the Vice President ( NI ) Jet AirLtd. Jet Air House , 13 , Community Centre , Yusuf Sarai , New Delhi - 110049 , in dismissing Sri Ramesh Kumar, Ex . Office Asstt . With effect from 1-9-2000 from his services is justified, legal And valid ? If not, to what relief and benefit is he entitled ?" 2. In response to the notices sent to the respective parties . The workman appeared and filed statement of claim claiming that he was dismissed on August, 2000. He was drawing half ofthe salary w.e.f. 13-1-89 till 2000. He is entitledto rest of the half salary with interest at the time of dismissal workman was 34 years of age and normal retirement age of the workman would have been till he attains the age of 60 years i.e. to say the workman would have worked for another 26 years . Since the workman was dismissed in August, 2000, therefore, his remaining salary of4 months for year 2000 and for next twenty five years works out to be at the rate of last drawn salary Rs . 6165 is Rs . 18,74,160 alongwith interest. He is also entitled to bonus @20% and he also claimed other benefits which he would be entitled if he had retired in due course after attainment of the age of 60 years .
3. Claim statement was followed by written statement and the case was contested by filing written statement stating therein that he was issued additional charge sheets on8th of January, 99. He was issued another charge sheet dated 3-3-99 on the allegations that he was claining overtime/preparing the overtime sheets without authorization and forging the signatures of his Department Head Ms. Brinda Roy and submitting the same directlyto H.R.D. and based on signatures forged by him of his department Head and had been fraudulently claiming and receiving the overtime w.e.f. May, 97to March , 98 . Aforesaid conduct of the workman constituted gross misconduct on the part of the workman and enquiry was conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice by the enquiry officer on the above allegations and after enquiry and on the basis of record enquiry officer found workman guilty and submitted his report dated 30-6-2001 copy of which was sent to the workman vide letter dated 17-4-2000, he did not submit any comments and ultimately vide letter dated 1-9-90 he was dismissed from service .
4. On merits suspension of the workınan is not denied. He was dismissed from service vide letter dated 1-9-2000 after he was found guilty of the charge during enquiry , during suspension period he was entitled to receive subsistence allowance and not entitled to relief
...Management
10826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 and further salary or wage for the period of his suspension . Rest of the averments in the claim statement are denjed and claim is sought to be dismissed as untenable .
5. Written statement was followed by replication denying averments made in the written statement and reiterating the averments made in the claim statement.
S.O. 5028.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.76/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, New Delhi - II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The Skyline NEPC Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on I - 12-2006.
[No. L- 11012/98/98 - IR ( C - 1 ) ]
AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA -CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN , NEWDELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N.RAI
I.D. No.76/1999
IN THE MATTER OF :
Smt . Rimmi Kalyan, R/O . L- 11 , Sarita Vihar , New Delhi -110044.
Versus
TheSkyline NEPC Limited, G-39 , 3rd Floor, Pawan House , Connaught Place ,
NewDelhi - 110001 .
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No.L- 11012/98 / 98- IR (C- 1 ) Central Governmentdt. 11-3-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder :
6. Thereafter after filing of rejoinder case was fixed for filing documents when the workman on 18-11-04 when the case was fixed for rejoinder and documents AIR for the workmar. Shri Naresh Kumar appeared and filed rejoinder and noted next date of hearing and the case was thus fixed for filing parties documents . Thereafter workman was to file documents . Neither the workman nor anybody on his behalf appeared. Workman last appeared on 6-4-2005 in person when he was supplied copy of management documents and the case was fixed for workman documents and admission denial and he was given last opportunity . Thereafter the case was posted for various dates on 26-5- 05, 21-7-05 , 8-9-05 , when the workman failed to file documents and the case was adjourned 10 10-11-05 when none appeared for the workman on the said date and thereafter workman did not appear on 12-1-06 when the case was adjourned to 13-6-06 for workman evidence and forfiling documents in the meantime. On 13-6-06 workman appeared and requested for adjournment to file documents and affidavit in evidence as the same was not ready . Case was then adjourned to 29-5-06, 3-5-06 and 27-9-06but none appeared for the workman and vide order dated 27-2-06 it was warned that he shall be proceeded exparte if in case he failed to take steps and the case was fixed for today i.e.27- 11-06 when also he did not appear . Perusal of the above order sheet shows that the workman is not interested in the prosecution of this case . As such from this it can be safely presumed that he does ; not dispute the correctness of the action of the management . Hence no dispute award is hereby passed under these circumstances against the workman . File be consigned to record room.
S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer
Dated : 27-11-06 .
नई दिल्ली , 4 दिसम्बर, 2006
"Whether Smt . Rimmi Kalyan who was posted as Assistant Manager in Skyline NEPC Co. is a workman according to the provision and said rule or not ? If she is a workman whether it is justified and legal to terminate her services w.e.f. 08.08.1997 ? If not to what relief she is entitled to ." का.आ. 5028.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 कः 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्काईलाइन एनइपीसी लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली II , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-11012/98/98- आई आर ( सी-1) ]
अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी
The workman applicant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim it has been stated that the clainant was working with the management with effect from 1.02.1994 as Marketing Analyst . The claimant was appointed vide letter dated 11.03.1994 and was confirmed vide letter dated 08.08.1994 . It is further submitted that the claimant was promoted as Assistant Manager vide letter dated 28.07.1995. The last drawn salary by the claimant was Rs.11 , 050. It is further submitted that the work performed by the claimant was , mainly clerical in nature and the claimant is a workman within the definition of Section 2(s ) ofthe ID Act, 1947 .
10827 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
involving the formulation of marketing policies . In fact, her position as 'Marketing Analyst ' was a sort of probation, duringwhich she was trained to hold a managerial position . Later on she was promoted as ' Assistant manager ' (Marketing) . In her capacity as ' Assistant Manager ' , besides framing of marketing policies she was also responsible for supervision of ' Marketing Executives ' . Her salary at the time of her termination was Rs . 11,050 which also shows that her nature of work was not clerical .
It is further submitted that the management vide letter dated 8-8-1997 illegally terminated the services of the claimant without giving notice pay and retrenchment compensation . It is further submitted that the said termination was in violation of Section 25 F and other provisions of ID Act . It is submitted that the management cven failed to pay salary for the month of July and August when the claimant had actually worked. The salary for the month of June was also paid only in the month of September .
That the claimant was not a ' workman ' under the ID Act. Therefore, the claimant has no right to raise any industrial dispute and the present reference to this Hon'ble Court/Tribunal is illegal and void . Hence , this Hon'ble Court/Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present dispute and the claim of the claimant is liable to be dismissed.
The respondent/management has failed to pay any notice pay or retrenchment compensation to the claimant . It is therefore, submitted that the illegal retrenchment is in violation of the ID Act and amounts to illegal termination . The claimant is therefore entitled for reinstatement with fullback wages .
It is further submitted that for any reason if the manageınent is unable to reinstate the claimant and pay back wages , the management is liable to pay the following ducs to the claimant .
Particulars
Amounts
It isspecifically denied that the work performed by her was clerical in nature and she is a workman within the definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act . In fact , she used to perform the work of the managerial nature . Even otherwise , it is unbelievable that she was getting a salary ofRs 11,050 forperforming clerical work.
Rs.11,050.00
Earned wage for the inonth of July, 97
Rs.2,920.00
Earned wage for 8 days in the month ofAug. , 97
Rs . 10,000.00
Medical reimbursement
LTA
Rs.4,000.00
Rs . 11,050.00
Notice pay ( one month salary )
It isdenied that the services of claimant were illegally terminated in violation of Section 25 (F ) or any other provision of ID Act. In fact , the claimant was not a 'workman' and the provisions of ID Act are not applicable to her . It is stated that the claimant was not a workman and the provisions of ID Act are not applicable to her . Therefore there is no question of any illegal termination or retrenchment . Hence , it is specifically denied that the claimant is entitledfor any reinstatement .
Rs. 22,100.00
Retrenchment compensation @ 15 days pay every Completed ycar of services .
Total
Rs. 61,120.00
The claims of the claimant are denied . It is also denied that the management is liable to pay any sum to the claimant . It isfurther stated that the alleged conciliation proceedings and the present reference is also illegal and void .
Rs.36,670.00
Interest on the above @ 24 % from the date of illegal retrenchment till the date of filing the claim.
Compensation for harassment causing mental tension .
Rs.30,000.00
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In her rejoinder she has reiterated the averments of her 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.
Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that the claimant was not present on several dates . The management hasfiled affidavit. The cross examination of the management witness was closed in the absence of the claimant . Heard argument from the side of the management.
In the facts and circumstances stated above , it is most respectfully prayed that the management be directed to reinstate the claimant and award full back wages or direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.1, 27, 790.00 as stated above along with interest @ 18 % till the date of actual payment also award Rs.10,000.00 towards cost of the claim.
Ittranspires from perusal of the claim statement that the claimant was working with the management w.e.f. 1-2-1994 as Marketing Analyst . She was appointed on 11-3-1994 and was confirmed vide letter dated 8-8-1994 . Sne was promoted as Assistant Manager vide letter dated 28-7-1995 . Her last drawn salary was Rs . 11050.
The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the claimant is not a' workman' as defined under section 2 ( s) of the ID Act , 1947 which specifically provides that one who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity is not a 'workman'
In the statement of claim the claimant has himself admitted that her last drawn salary was Rs.11050 and she was promoted as Assistant Manager w.e.f. 28-7-1995. In That the claimant was appointed as ' Marketing Analyst which is basically an administrative function.
3916GI/06-17 10828
the above facts and circumstances the claimant is not a workman in view of Section 2 ( s) of the ID Act, 1947 .
It was submitted from the side of the management that she was performing administrative function involving the formulation of Marketing Policy . She was a Marketing Analyst . She was subsequently promoted as Assistant Manager. She is not a workman in view of the definition of Section 2 ( s) of the ID Act , 1947. So she is not entitled to get any rekief as prayed for .
The reference is replied thus:
Smt. Rimmi Kalyan who was posted as Assistant Manager in Skyline NEPC Co. is not a workman under section 2( s ) of the ID Act, 1947. Termination of her services w.c.f. 08-08-1997 is legal and justified . She is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .
Award is given accordingly .
Date:01-12-2006.
R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5029.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक 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 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40011/6/2001- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 S.O. 5029.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 11 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No. L-40011 /6/2001 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N.RAI .
I.D. No. 66/2004
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri Ranbir Singh, C/o . Delhi Labour Union , Aggarwal Bhawan , G.T. Road, Tis Hazari , Delhi-110054
Versus
The SectionOfficer , ( SPB - I) , DakBhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001 .
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour but its letter No. L-40011/6/ 2001- IR (DU) Central Goverment dt. 31-03-2004 has referred the following points for adjudication .
The point runs as hereunder:-
"Whether the demand of the Delhi Labour Union from the management of Deptt. of Posts to give appointment to Shri Ranbir Singh, S/o . Late Shri Mange Ram on compassionate grounds to the post ofPostman on regular basis is just and fair ? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? " The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. Inthe statement of claim it has been stated that Late Shri Mange Ram was employed as a Postman at Post Office , GoleMarket, New Delhi . During the employment he died on 15-7-1996 leaving behind the following members of the family inharness .
1. Smt. Phoola Devi , Wife , 58 years .
2. Smt. Kamla Devi , Daughter , 38 years .
3. Shri Karamvir Singh, Son , 36 years .
4. Smt . Vimla Devi, Daughter , 34years.
5. Smt. Sarla Devi , Daughter , 32 years.
6. Shri Ranbir Singh , Son , 30 years .
That a proper application was made to the department fór getting employment on compassionate ground . The application for compassionate appointment was given by Smt. Phoola Devi , wife of Late Shri Mange Ram for securing employment to her son, Shri Ranbir Singh which has been rejected vide communication No.24172/ 97 - SPB - I dated 19-4-1999 without assigning any reason .
That the family of the deceased were completely dependent on the workman Shri Mange Ram as he was the onlybread eamer for the family. Now, after the death of the workman, the family of the deceased consisting of six aforesaid legal heirs have no source for their livelihood and they have reached the verge of starvation .
ThatShri Ranbir Singh is eligible for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of postman . He is unemployed . That the denial of appointment of the 10829 भारत का राजपत्त्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
workman on compassionate ground is wholly illegal , bad, unjust and malafide.
no reply was received and it was presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter , a statement of claim was also filed before the Conciliation Officer but the conciliation proceedings also failed due to adamant and non- cooperative attitude of the management.
That in similar circumstances the dependents of other deceased employees have been given employment on compassionate ground but the workman aforesaid was denied the same . That according to the verdict of the higher courts the management should have given him appointment within 4months on compassionate ground on regular basis .
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the case is that on 15-7-1996 one Shri Mange Ram, Ex . Postman posted at New Delhi GPO expired in the month of September , 1996 his son (applicant) applied for appointment on compassionate ground.
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia in the matter of"Sushma Gosain & Ors . Vs. Union of India reported in 1989 SCC & ( L& S ) 662 SC has held that the appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of bread earner in the family and such appointment should be made on regular basis in proper pay scale. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that in such appointment there should not be any delay .
That the application was received by the answering respondent vide CPM, NDHO letter No. B2 /7 , CG /Ranbir/ 96-97 inter alia praying for job on compassionate grounds . On 16-1-1997 the application of the applicant was put up before the committee constituted for this purpose along with other cases .
That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of "Hira Lal Vs. General Manager , DESU reported in 1993 (27) DRJ 559 (Delhi) has directed the management of DESU to appoint the family member of the deceased employee in service.
That the committee after carefully and sympathetically considering the application of the applicant in relation to other similar cases under the provisions of extant rules/ guidelines issued from time to time, reached the conclusion that applicant is not entitled for job on compassionate grounds . The committee came to the conclusion for the following reasons :-
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of"Balbir Kaur Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited reportd in (2000) 97 FJR 43 SC where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the legal representative is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground .
A. It was found that the applicant is not in indigent condition and as such the case did not come under the preview of most deerving cases under the scheme of compassionate appointment.
That in a recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed by Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur on 16-10-2000 it has been held that the industrial tribunal has powers to grant appointment on compassionate ground.
B. There are various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India namely " U.K. Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others " [ JT 1994 (3 ) SC 525 ] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period and it is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. In the present case the father of the applicant died on 15-7-1996 but application was received in September, 1996 i.e. about two months after .
That the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter titled as K. Raja Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board [ 1991 (Vol . 1 ) LLN 152 ] has held that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected to an applicant/ dependent even if another family member is already in service with the management. In the present case none of thc familymember is employed.
That the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the matter titled as Nand Lal Kushwaha Vs. State of UP [ 1991 (Vol . 62) FLR 491 ] has held that appointment on compassionate ground should be allowed even by creating apost if the post is not available at the relevant time .
C. That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter titled as "Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar" [JT- 1996 (5) SC 379] . On May , 1996 has also reached to a conclusion that appointment on compassionate ground can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose . TheHon'ble Supreme Court had taken the similar view in case titled as "Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Smt . A. Radhika Tirumalai" [JT 1996 (9 ) SC 197] dated 9th October , 1996.
That this is one of the service conditions of the workman that in case of death of any employee during cmployment one dependent of the deceased employee has to be given employment on compassionate ground .
That in the similar circumstances the management has given employment on compassionate ground to other employees but has denied the same to this workman which is violative of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of India.
D. The department of Personnel and Training vide their OM No. 14014/ 18/200- Estt (D) dated 22-6-2001 have clearly said that in future , the prescribed committee should take into account the position regarding availability of vacancies for compassionate appointment on compassionate ground only in a really deserving case and only if vacancy available that too within the ceiling of 5% ofvacancies , falling under direct recruitment quota.
That a demand notice was served upon the management by registered A/D post vide communication dated 19th August, 1999 duly received in their office but 10830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] E. The applicant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground as matter of right . The applicant before approaching the management had approached the Delhi Labour Union and on that advice he had approached the department .
There is no violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India . The equality of the applicant has not been snatched by the management . It is stated that no specific instance has been shown by the applicant which states that the equity of the applicant has been snatched by the respondents .
On 12-3-1997 , Smt . Phula Devi i.e. Mother of the applicant had submitted an application for reconsideration ofher case . Her case was duły reconsidered sympathetically but CPMG again found it ineligible , hence , rejected the application and the applicant was accordingly informed.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .
Evidence of both the parties has been taken .
F. The department paid following terminal benefits to the widow which are as under :-
GPF
Rs.34,550.00
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
DORG
72,102.00
CGEIS
37,184.00
PLI
5,000.00
Total
Rs . 1,48,836.00
The widow is also receiving the family pension of Rs . 1,764 per month.
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the applicant Shri Ranbir Singh is the son of deceased Shri Mange Ram . He has been nominated for compassionate appointment by her mother Smt. Phoola Devi w/o Late Shri Mange Ram . His application has been rejected vide communication No. 24-172/97 - SPB -I dated 19-4-1999 without assigning any reason . The rejection of the application for compassionate appointment of Shri Ranbir Singh is illegal , bad and malafide . The family of the deceased Shri Mange Ram is in harness . They have no sufficient means for their survival . The action of the management is contrary to law.
Itis wrongto state, that the application was rejected without assigning any reason . The case of the applicant was duły examined in detail by CRC and found there was no hardship being faced by the family of deceased Government servant . It is submitted that all her daughters are married . Her elder son is in Govemment service as such the condition of the family cannot be put to the ambit of indigent.
It is wrong that there is no source of income for the family of Shri Ranbir Singh . The elder son of the deceased employee is a government servant and all the daughters are married , hence , there is no as such liability .
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that a committee was constituted for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment . The committee carefully and sympathetically considered all the aspects of the case and rejected the application of the applicant as he was not found within the ambit of indigent condition and his case is not one of the most deserving cases under the scheme of compassionate appointment .
It is stated that according to instructions of DOP & T only 5 % of the DR approved vacancies in any Grade . C&D posts can be filled up on compassionate grounds and in the absence of such vacancies , there is no provision of any compassionate appointment .
It is stated that the claim of the applicant was duly considered. Every case is examined on the basis of merits and only the most deserving cases are considered depending upon the vacancy position .
It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the U.K. Nagpal and State of Haryana has held that compassionate appointment is not a vested right . It has been further held in Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Dinesh Kumar that appointment on compassionate ground can only be made if the vacancy is available for that prupose . The case of the applicant is beyond the preview of most deserving cases as per the scheme of the compassionate appointment . The workman cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. All the compassionate appointments are to be covered under 5% vacancy .
It is stated that among other factors the major determining factor is the availability of vacancies no such definite period of limit is laid down for offering compassionate appointment . As stated earlier the case was examined and rejected.
It is stated that each and every case is decided on different Facts . The applicant is outside the ambit and facts of the case as quoted by the applicant.
It was further submitted that the applicant is not a workman u/s 2 (s) ofthe ID Act, 1947. There is no relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the answering management . There is no family responsibility onthe applicant . He is 30 years of age . He has been properly educated by his deceased father . He does not deserve compassionate appointment . His mother is drawing family pension of Rs . 1,764 per month for her own survival . The It is stated that no such precondition is attached to the appointment of a Government servant . It is a matter of gratitude and sympathy of the department to the members of the deceased that a compassionate appointment is offered as per laid down provisions .
10831 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
deceased Shri Mange Ram has married all his daughters . His one son is in Government service .
Ranbir Singh, S/ o. Late Shri Mange Ramon compassionate grounds to the post of Postman on regular basis is neither just nor fair . The applicant is not entitled to get any relief asprayed for.
Itwas submitted that the sole object of granting him compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tie over the sudden crisis . In the present case there is no such situation .
Award is given accordingly. Date: 01-12-2006. R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5030.-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 हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111 तथा 112/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40011/6 एवं 7/2004 - आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 4th December , 2006 My attention was drawn to 2003 1998 (FLR) 131 , 1995-1 - LLJ798 , 1994 - II - LLJ 812. I have perused the case law cited . It is true that the management has to create post in case of deserving candidates . The availability of post cannot be the ground for not giving compassionate appointment : The management has to exceed 5 % ceiling limit in deserving cases . The case of a family in crisis cannot be rejected on the ground of non - availability of the post or exceeding 5 % ceiling limit . In the instant case the applicant is 30 ycars old . He is major. He has been properly brought up and educated by his father . So it cannot be said that the family is in crisis and compassionate appointment is necessary for sustenance of the family. The law cited by the workman applicant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .
S.O. 5030. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111 & 112/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on4-12-2006.
[No. L-40011/6 & 7/2004- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Compassionate appointment is always given to redeem the family in distress . In the instant case the deceased has left no minor children and no unmarried daughters .He has left only one son Shri Ranbir Singh and he is 30 years old. It cannot be even presumed that a 30 years old man is not properly brought up and educated. Shri Ranbir Singh is not minor and he is not studying in any college or in any university. Compassionate appointment is given taking into consideration the dire need of the family of the deceased. The son claiming compassionate appointment is 30 years old. His mother is getting family pension and his mother has received the all terminal benefits amounting to Rs . 1,48,836. Smt . Phoola Devi w/o. deceased Shri Mange Ram and Shri Ranbir Singh are the two members of the family. It cannotbe said that the death of the deceased Shri Mange Ram has left the family in crisis .
PRESENT : Shri T. Ramchandra Reddy , Presiding Officer Dated the 20th day of November , 2006
Common Order In
Industrial Dispute Nos . 111/2004 & 112/2004
BETWEEN:
There are no children of the deceased studying . The applicant is a grown up person . Compassionate appointment is not a vested right . He cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right . The applicant is not in any way indigent and the family is not in any way in financial crisis .
1. Sri G. Kamalakar , PO Begumpet, (Mandal), Bejjenki , Distt . Karimnagar (AP) ]
Petitioner in ID No. 112/2004
2. Sri G. Yesuratnam, H. No. 2-10932 (New 1246 ) , Yhothinagar, Karimnagar - 2 .
Petitioner in ID No. 112/2004 The respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment after the. considering the entire aspects of the case . There may be more deserving cases within the ambit of 5 % vacancies . In case appointment is given to the claimant the case of many befitting and needy applicants may be ignored. The applicant does not deserve any compassionate appointment.
AND
The reference is replied thus:
1. The General Manager , Telecom, M/s . BSNL, Karimnagar (AP)-505001
The demand of the Delhi Labour Union from the management of Deptt. ofPosts to give appointment to Shri 10832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2. The Chief General Manager ,
M's . Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Aradhra Pradesh Circle , Abids , Hyderabad- 500001 .
Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioners :
Shri D. Balakishan Rao , Advocate
For the Respondents : Shri V. Rajeshwara Rao, Advocate
AWARD
These two industrial disputes bearing Nos . ID 111/ 2004 and ID 112/2004 arises on being referred by the Government of India vide order Nos . L - 40011 /6/2004- IR (DU) dated 20-8-2004 and L - 40011 /7/2004 - IR (DU) dated 20-8-2004 respectively in exercise of powers conferredby clause D af sub- section 1 and sub- section 2A of Sec . 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by this tribunal with the following schedule .
SCHEDULE
In ID No. 111/2004:
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . BSNL , Karimnagar and Hyderabad in not regularizing the services of Sh . G. Kamalakar, Casual Mazdoor working with effect from 20-11-2000when his juniors were regularized and promoted to the next posts is justified or not ? If not , to what relief the applicant is entitled for ? "
In ID No. 112/2004:
engaged as a casual mazdoor on 17-12-1999 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. disposed of the Writ Petitions and batch on 22-11-2000 directing the Respondent to engage the Petitioner and others afresh w.e.f. 22-11-2000 . The Petitioner was continued as a casual labour and became eligible for regularization in view of the decision reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court Cases page 2342 as he completed more than240 days of service in a year. The Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. also directed the Respondent to formulate a scheme to regularise the services of the Petitioner along with others . Butthe Respondent has not taken any action and did not confirm the temporary status on the ground that engagement of the casual labour was banned on 20-6-1988 . The Petitioner further submitted that his services were terminated on 29-4-1998 . He was re - engaged in pursuance ofthe interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. from 17-12-1999 . As such , the question of break period does not arise and the said period has to be treated as on duty. It is further submitted that the first Respondent in his letter dated 5-9-2002 furnished his service particulars along with others and requested the Assistant General Manager (Admn.) to consider the cases for regularization of services . Further, the services of S/Sri Ch . Subba Reddy, N. Shyam Sunder Rao and G.P. Rangaiah who have also filed Writ Petitions along with the Petitioner and also similarly placed were confirmed temporary status during the year 2002 and regularized during the year 2003. Similarly , one Sri Sudhakar Reddy, contract labour was also given temporary status and regularized and the same benefit was not given to the Petitioner inspite of several vacancies .
"Whether the action of the Management of M/s . BSNL , Karimnagar and Hyderabad in not regularizing the services of Sh . G. Yesuratnam, Casual Mazdoor working with effect from 20-11-2000 when hisjuniors were regularized and promoted to the next posts is justified or not ? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled for ?"
2. Since the facts and the question of law is similar in nature in both the cases it is convenient to dispose of both the IDs by a common Award .
4. The claimant Sri G. Yesuratnam in ID 112/2004 filed his claim statement stating that he was appointed as a casual mazdoor w.e.f. 2-1-1986 and that he completed 17 years of service to the satisfaction of his superiors and that his services were terminated on 29-4-1998 on the ground that he has submitted bogus work days certificate in support of work done by him . He approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. ,by filing Writ Petition along with others in WP No. 23456 of 1998 and batch. The Hon'blc High Court ofA.P. has issued interim orders directing the Respondent to engage him as a casual labour and accordingly , he was re-engaged on 17-12-1999 . The Writ Petitions batch was disposed of on 22-11-2000 . The Petitioner stated similar facts as stated by Sri G. Kamalakar in ID 111/2004 .
3. The claimant Sri G. Kamalakar submitted his claim statement stating that he was appointed as a casual mazdoor under the control of the 1st Respondent w.e.f. 2-1-1986 and that he completed about 17 years of service as casual mazdoor to the satisfaction of his superiors . The Respondent inspite of confirming the temporary status and regularization has terminated his services on 29-4-1998 on the ground that he submitted a bogus work days certificate in support of the work done by him. He approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench and also Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , by filing Writ Petition No. 23456 of 1998 and batch . The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. passed interimdirection suspending the termination order . In pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , he was re-
5. The Respondent filed counter affidavit of Sri B. Narsinga Rao in both the industrial disputes and denied the averments made in the petition and taken the same pleas in both the cases and pleaded that the Petitioners claim to the effect that they worked in R.E. , Projects , got verified through a letter dated 30-6-1990 and the record of engagement for the period as claimed is not available and has been weeded out as per the retention schedule . The Railway Electrification authorities of Nagpur vide their 10833 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
are as follows : Ex. WI is the copy oforder in WPMP 27064/ 1999. EX.W2 is the copy ofre - engagement order issued by SDO Karimnagar dated 17-12-1999 .Ex. W3 is the copy of list ofworking periods from 1-1-86, consisting of 14pages . Ex .W 4 is the copy of proceedings dated 29-4-2003 issued byA.G.M. , Telecom Circle- 1, Hyderabad. EX.W5 is the copy of letter dated 25-6-2003 of the Div . Engineer , Telecom, Transmission, Abids , Hyderabad . EX.W6 is the copy of letter dated27-2-2003 by A.G.M. , GMTD , Karimnagar . In ID112/2004the Petitioner filed the following documents : EX.WI is the copy of list of working periods from 1-12-82 to4-7-85 and 1-5-89 to 30-7-98 to till date consisting of 3 pages . EX, W2 is the copy of proceedings dated 29-4-2003 issued by A.G.M. , Telecom Circle- 1, Hyderabad . EX.W3 is the copy of letter dated 25-6-2003 of the Div . Engineer, Telecom, Transmission, Abids , Hyderabad . EX.W4 is the copy of letter dated 27-2-2003 by A.G.M. , GMTD , Karimnagar.
9. They reiterated in their affidavits the averments made in their respective claim statements . The case ofthe Petitioners is that there is one Sri Ch . Subba Reddy is similarly placed workman and filed Writ Petition along with them and a common Judgement was passed in the Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners and Ch. Subba Reddy . Further, Sri Subba Reddy was given temporary status and regularization as a casual mazdoor and subsequently promoted as a telephone mechanic .
letter dated 17-7-1990 furnished the working period as Nil . Therefore, the claim of the Petitioners that they were engaged in the Railway Electrification Project was found to be false . As such their services were terminated due to ban orders dated 22-6-1988 by issuing a notice dated 20-7-1993 . It is admitted that the Petitioners have approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 1014/93 , which was disposed on 26-8-93 directing the Respondent to hold an enquiry giving a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners. The Petitioners were taken back on the final disposal ofthe said OA on the file ofHon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and enquiry. was held . During the enquiry the Petitioners and other claimants could not substantiate their claim in the Department, as such a termination notice was issued dated 24-7-1998 . The Petitioners and others approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. against the orders of the termination and obtained interim orders for their re- engagement and finally the writ petition was disposed of on 22-11-2000 by treating the Petitioners engagement as afresh . It is further submitted that the record of the service prior to 22-11-2000 has no relevance for any purpose and the claim for seniority and as of temporary status and regularization of the Petitioners could only be considered basing on their engagement as casual labour subject to the availability of vacancies with reference to their age and qualification according to the recruitment rules . The Petitioners are not entitled for seniority or consequential benefits since their engagement was afresh as per the orders ofthe Hon'ble High Court of A.P. from 22-11-2000.
6. It is further submitted that with regard to Sri Ch. Subba Reddy, the matter is pending in the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , in WP No. 9528/2004 , as a substantial question of law. Regarding Sri G.P. Rangaiah, Sri Sudhakar Reddy, and Sri N. Shyam Sunder Rao, the cases are distinct and different and have no relevance to the case of the Petitioners .
7. The Petitioner claimants have filed their respective rejoinders stating that there is a record in Railway Electrification Projects since a certificate was issued by Sub -Divisional Officer , Phones - II , Karimnagar which are filed by the Petitioners and the plea of the Respondent that the records are weeded out is of no consequence and the persons similarly situated were given temporary status and absorption. It is not justifiable for the Respondent to refuse the same benefit to the claimants . Further denied that the cases of Sri Ch . Subba Reddy , Sri G.P. Rangaiah, Sri Sudhakar Reddy and Sri N. Shyam Sunder Rao are distinct and different and have no relevance to the case of the Petitioners; and pleaded that they were appointed and engaged along with the Petitioners.
8. The Petitioners G. Kamalakar and G. Yesuratnam filed their respective affidavits in support of their case and got marked documents EX.WI to W6 in ID 11/2004 and EX.WI to W4 in ID 112/2004. In ID 111/2004 the documents
10. As against this, the Respondent filed affidavits ofMW1 Sri B. Narsinga Rao . As the witness could not be produced for cross examination they filed the evidence affidavit of MW2 Sri M. Venkata Swamy in support oftheir case and got marked documents in both the cases. In ID 111/2004 the following documents were marked: EX.M1 is the copy ofDOT letter dated 22-6-1988 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour . EX.M2 is the copy ofDOTr . dt.12-2-99 imposing total ban. EX.M3 is the copy of DOT letter dated 30-3-1985 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour . EX.M4 is the copy of letter dated 30-6-90 to A.O. , R.E. ,Projects , Nagpur by R2 . EX.M5 is the copy of letter dated 17-7-90 to R2 by A.O. , R.E. , Projects , Nagpur. Ex M6 is the copy of order dated 22-11-2000 in WP 21586/ 99. EX.M7 is the copy of annexure of re -engagement of casual labour as per EX.W6 . EX.M8 is the copy of Appendix- 3 ofFHB Vol.III stipulating Retention Schedule. EX.M9 is the copy of letter of regularization with regard to absorption of eligible casual mazdoors and not extendable tothe Petitioners dated 29-9-2000. EX.M10 is the copy of order in OA No. 1014/93 dated 26-8-93 . EX.M11 is the copy ofletter dated 9-4-2003 to the ALC( C) , Mancherial by the Petitioner . EX.M12 is the copy of enquiry report dt. 13-12-97. The following documents were marked in ID 112/2004: EX.M1 is the copy of DOT letter dated 22-6-1988 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour. EX.M2 is the copy of DOT letter dated 12-2-99 imposing total ban. EX.M3 is the copy of DOT letter dated 30-3-1985 imposing 10834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
exigency, any scheme to be launched by the Management , the suitability of the workmen , etc .. " In view of the order in Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , the Respondent re-engaged the Petitioners as casual labour . The status of the Petitioners is that they are still working as casual labourers for the last more than 17 years . The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , has held without taking into consideration of the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates produced by the Petitioners and others. It was directed to the Respondent -Management to engage the Petitioners afresh as casual labour and pay them wages and other emoluments and they are entitled for regularization depending upon the future exigencies and schemes to be launched by the Management ." ban on engagement of casual labour . EX.M4 is the copy of letter dated 30-6-90 to A.O. , R.E. , Projects , Nagpur by R2 . EX.MS is the copy of letter dated 17-7-90 to R2 by A.O. , R.E. , Projects , Nagpur . EX.M6 is the copy of order dated 22-11-2000 in WP 21586/99 . Ex.M7 is the copy of annexure of reengagement of casual labour as per EX.W6 . EX.M8 is the copy of Appendix 3 of FHB Vol . III stipulating Retention Schedule . EX.M9 is the copy of letter of regularization with regard to absorption of eligible casual mazdoors and not extendable to the Petitioners dated 29- 9-2000 . Ex.M10 is the copy of order in OA No.1018/93 dated26-8-93 . EX.M11 is the copy of 2nd termination order dated 24-7-98 . EX . M 12 is the copy of 1st termination order dated 30-7-93 . EX.MI3 is the copy of letter dated 9-1-2004 to the General Manager, Telecom by the ALC( C) , Mancherial . EX.M14 is the copy of letter of the Petitioner to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , Mancherial dated Nil . EX.M15 is the copy of reference of the dispute to the Central Government dated 20-8-2004 . EX.M16 is the copy ofenquiry report dt . 15-11-97.
13. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Sri Ch . Subba Reddy who was similarly placed casual labour, also alleged to have been filed false certificate regarding the service at Railway Electrification Project, Nagpur along with the Petitioners has filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , and while the writs are pending Sri Ch. Subba Reddy was given temporary status and subsequently regularized his services . As such , the Petitioners are also entitled for temporary status and absorption.
11. It is admitted by MW2 in his cross examination that he does not know about the confirmation of temporary statusto Sri Ch . Subba Reddy, Sri Shyam Sunder Rao , Sri Sudhakar Reddy and G.P. Rangaiah and their absorption.
14. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that in view of the orders of the Hon'bleHigh Court of A.P. , the Petitioners service has to be counted only from the date of the Judgement and they are not entitled to claim any seniority or service and the Petitioners could not be absorbed since there is no fresh scheme available .
15. The version of the Respondents is that even though the Petitioners have worked for several years their services cannot be counted in view of the orders of the Hon'bleHigh Court ofA.P. that their engagement as casual labour has to be treated as afresh from the date of the Judgement .
12. The Petitioners and others claimed that they worked at the Railway Electrification Project at Nagpur from 1986 to 1989 and filed service certificates to that effect. The Respondent Management has disputed service at Railway Electrification Project , Nagpur and found that they filed false certificates . On that the Respondent has terminated their services . Against their termination , the Petitioners approached Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and there after they filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. Sri Ch. Subba Reddy has filed the Writ Petition No.23456/98 , the Petitioner G. Kamalakar filed Writ Petition No.21586 /99 and the Petitioner G. Yesuratnam filed Writ Petition No.21579/99 . The relief claimed by the Petitioner is to declare the termination order dated 24-7-98 as arbitrary and illegal . Further a common order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. on 22-11-2000 in respect ofthe Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioners and others who were similarly situated . The Writ Petitions were allowed with the following observations , "Taking into consideration the fact that these Petitioners have worked as casual labourers (mazdur) under the Respondent- Management for such a long period ranging 1985-86 till date , though pursuant to the Interim direction granted by this Court , and many of them might have already crossed the age of eligibility and without taking into consideration the genuineness or otherwise of the certificates produced hy them , it is now ordered that the Respondent Management shall engage these Petitioners afresh as casual labourers from this day and pay thern the wages and other emoluments payahle to the causal labourers from this day . Regarding regularization of these Petitioners , it shall depend upon the future
16. In ID 111/2004 the Petitioner has filed the document Ex . W 6 regarding the appointinent of Sri Ch. Subba Reddy. This document discloses that Sri Ch . Subba Reddy has filed service records claiming to have worked in Railway Electrification Project during the period 1984-86 and requested to provide work . As such he was engaged as a casual labour and a letter was addressed to the Railway Electrification Projects authority for verification ofparticulars and that the authorities have informed that Sri Ch . Subba Reddy did not work during that period. An enquiry was held and found that Sri C. Subba Reddy has filed false certificate . In the mean time a letter of SDOT dated 8-11-91 confirmed temporary status to Sri Ch. Subba Reddy w.e.f. 1-10-89 . Since the service certificate filed by Sri Ch . Subba Reddy was proved to be false he was terminated from service vide letter dated 24-7-98 . Sri Ch . Subba Reddy and other terminated causal labour in the same case approached the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and 10835 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बरं 30 , 2006/पौष 9,, 1928
In ID 111/2004:
MW1: Sri B. NarsingaRao
WW1 : Sri G. Kamalakar
MW2: Sri M. Venkata Swamy
InID112/2004:
WW1: Sri G. Yesuratnam MW1 : Sri B. Narsinga Rao MW2: Sri M. Venkata Swamy
Documentsmariod for the Petitioner in ID 111/2004
Ex.W1: Copyoforder in WPMP 7064/1999 got interim suspension of the order of termination. The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Respondent Management to engage the Petitioners and Sri Ch. Subba Reddy afresh w.e.f. 22-11-2000 as stated above. The Petitioners , casual mazdoors were terminated and taken afresh from 22-11-2000 whereas , Sri Ch. Subba Reddywho was alreadygiven regular mazdoor w.e.f. 1-10-2000 he was, not taken as afresh and he was given promotion fromtime totime.
Ex.W2: Copyof re-engagement order issued by SDO, Karimnagar dt. 17-12-1999.
Ex.W3: Copy of list ofworking periods from 1-1-86, consisting of 14 pages
Ex.W4: Copyofproceedings dt.29-4-2003 issuedby A.G.M. , Telecom Circle- I , Hyderabad
Ex.W5: Copy of Ir.dt.25-6-2003 of the Div . Engineer , Telecom, Transmission, Abids, Hyderabad 17. It shouldbe noted that before the disposal ofthe Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. Sri Ch . Subba Reddy was given temporary status w.e.f. 1-10-1989 and the same was not brought to the notice of theHon'bleHigh Court of A.P. Sri Ch. Subba Reddywho was also placed in the similar situation, was promoted during the pendency of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners and Sri Ch . Subba Reddy.
Ex.W6: Copy of lr.dt. 27-2-2003 by A.G.M. , GMTD , Karimnagar.
Documents marked for the Respondent in ID 111/2004 Εχ.Μ 1 : Copy ofDOT Ir.dt.22-6-1988 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour
EX.M2 : Εχ.Μ3 : Copy of DOT Ir . dt. 12-2-99 imposing total ban. CopyofDOT Ir.dt.30-3-1985 imposing ban on engagement ofcasual labour
Ex.M4: Copy of lr.dt.30-6-90 to A.O. , R.E. ,Projects , NagpurbyR2
Ex.M5: Copy of Ir . dt.17-7-90 to R2 by A.O. , R.E. , Projects, Nagpur
Ex.M6: Copy oforderdt. 22-11-2000 in WP 21586/99 .
Ex.M7 : Copy of annexure of re - engagement of casual labour as per Ex .W6
Ex.M8 : CopyofAppendix -3 of FHB Vol . III stipulating Retention Schedule
18. The Respondent Management could not state the details regarding Sri Ch . Subba Reddy , Sri Shyam Sunder Rao and Sri G.P. Rangaiah who were allegedtobe the similarly placed casual labour like Petitioners were granted temporary status . The Respondent claimed that their cases are distinct and different but could not place any record to justify their contention. It is categorically pleaded by the Petitioners that the said casual labours are juniors to them and they were regularized and promoted. The contention of the Respondent that the Petitioners has to be treated as afresh candidates even though Sri Ch . Subba Reddy who was similarly placed was given temporary status and promotion is not justified . The Respondent has not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. regarding the promotion of the Sri Ch. Subba Reddy during the pendency of the proceedings in Writ Petitions . He also faced the same enquiry as the Petitioners faced and his services were also terminated on the ground that he filed false certificate.
Ex.M9: Copy of Ir . of regularization with regard to absorption of eligible casual mazdoors and not extendable to the Petitioners dt . 29-9-2000
Ex.M 10: Copy oforder in OA No. 1014/93 dt. 26-8-93
Ex.M 11 : Copy of Ir . dt.9-4-2003 to the ALC ( C) , Mancherial by the Petitioner
Ex.M 12: Copy of enquiry report dt . 13-12-97 Documents marked for the Petitioner in ID 112/2004 19. In view of the circumstances, the Petitioners who were working as casual labours are entitled to get temporary status , consequent absorption on par with Sri Ch . Subba Reddy . Therefore , a common award is passed accordingly directing the Respondent to grant temporary status and regularization to the Petitioners Sri G. Kamalakar in ID No.111 /2004 and Sri G. Yesuratnam in ID No. I 12/2004 on par with Sri Ch . Subba Reddy from the date of his getting temporary status i.e. , 1-10-1989 .
Ex.W 1: Copyof list ofworking periods from 1-12-82 to 4-7-85 and 1-5-89 to 30-7-98 to till date consisting of 3 pages
Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
Ex.W2 : Copy of proceedings dt.29-4-2003 issued by A.G.M. , Telecom Circle - I , Hyderabad
Ex.W3 : Copy of lr.dt.25-6-2003 of the Div. Engineer, Telecom, Transmission , Abids , Hyderabad Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected,by me on this the 20th day ofNovember, 2006.
T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Presiding Officer
Ex.W4 : Copy of Ir.dt. 27-2-2003 by A.G.M. , GMTD, Karimnagar.
Appendix of evidence
Documents marked for the Respondent in ID 112/2004 Witnesses examined for
Εχ.ΜΙ :
the Petitioner :
Copy ofDOT Ir.dt.22-6-1988 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour .
Witnesses examined for the Respondent:
3916G1/06-18 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
10836
Ex.M2 Copy of DOT Ir . dt . 12-2-99 imposing total ban.
Copy of DOT Ir.dt.30-3-1985 imposing ban on engagement of casual labour . Ex.M3:
Copy of Ir.dt.30-6-90 to A.O. , R.E. ,Projects , Nagpur by R2 . Ex.M4:
Ex.M5: Copy of Ir . dt.17-7-90 to R2 by A.O. , R.E. , Projects , Nagpur
Ex.M6 : Copy of order dt.22-11-2000 in WP 21586/99 Ex.M7: Copy of annexure of re - engagement of casual labour as per Ex.W6 .
Ex.M8 : Copy ofAppendix -3 of FHB Vol . III stipulating Retention Schedule
Ex.M9 : Copy of Ir . of regularization with regard to absorption of eligible casual mazdoors and not extendable to the Petitioners dt.29-9-2000 .
Copy of order in OA No. 1018/93 dt.26-8-93 Ex.M 10 :
Copy of 2nd termination order dt.24-7-98 Ex.M11 :
Copy of 1st termination order dt. 30-7-93 Ex.M 12 :
Ex.M 13 : Copy of Ir. dt.9-1-2004 to the General Manager , Telecom by the ALC( C) , Mancherial Ex.M 14 : Copy of letter of the Petitioner to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Mancherial dt.Nil Ex.M 15: Copy of reference of the dispute to the Central Govt.dt.20-8-2004 .
Ex.M16 : Copy of enquiry report dt . 15-11-97 नई दिल्ली , 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5031 ,-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 हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/8/2003- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 S.O. 5031. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour CourtHyderabad as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman which was reecived by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No. L -40012/8/2003 - IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LAOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
SHRIT. RAMCHANDRA REDDY, Presiding Officer Dated the 23rd day of November, 2006 Industrial Dispute No. 51/2003 BETWEEN:
.....Petitioner J. Srinivas, D.No.9 /274/A , Gowrishanakarapuram, Gudiwada - 521301 .
AND
TheGeneral Manager ,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vijayawada (A.P. )
.....Respondent APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner : Sri S.M. Subhan, Advocate For the Respondent: Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate
AWARD
This is a reference made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No.L-40012/8 /2003 - IR(DU) dated 21-4-2003 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the following schedule .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vijayawada in dismissing services ofSri J. Srinivas , Ex - casual Mazdoor is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The Petitioner claimant J. Srinivas also filed LCID No.129/2003 under Sec.2A(2 ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 seeking the same relief against the Respondent Management. As such the same is clubbed in this case as amemo filed by the Petitioner .
3. The Petitioner submitted that he was engaged as a casual mazdoor by the Respondent Management froin 8-11-19981 and discharged from 1-4-1984 for want of work and that he worked for 857 days . He was re - engaged from 5-10-1990 and continued upto 25-3-1994 and he was terminatedorally removing his name from muster roll . Later on he was re -engaged from 1-4-1994 onwards through a contractor and continued in service under the contractor . Hehas completed 980 days of service since his appointment on 8-11-1981 , the break - up engagement from 1-4-1984 till 5-10-1990 was due to non - availability of work claimed by the Respondent . He has completed 1123 days on his re- engagement . He further submitted that several of his juniors with later date of appointment were retained in 10837 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
service and given temporary status and denied the same benefit to him. He approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and filed OA No.1316/1994 and the same was allowed on 29-8-1997 with a direction to the Respondent to grant temporary status and regularization of his service . A review petition filed by the Respondent against the said orders was also dismissed on 2-1-1998. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 14130/1998 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. which was allowed on 23-1-2002 with a direction to the Petitioner to approach this Tribunal for getting relief.
Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1360/94 dated 29-8-97 . Ex . W3 is the Copy of application for grant of temporary stuatus by WW1 . Ex . W4 is the copy of certificate issued by JTO , Coaxial , Gudiwada certifying that WWI worked for 857 days . Ex .W5 is the copy ofcertificate issued by JTO , Coaxial , Gudiwada certifying that WWI worked for 239 days . Ex . W6 is the copy of certificate issued by JTO, E- 10B , Installation , Vijayawada certifying that WW1 worked for 1980 days . Ex . W7 is the copy of representation of WWI to the Respondent recd . on 3-10-97. Ex.W 8 is the copy of certificate issued by JTO , E- 10B , Installation , Vijayawada certifying that WWI worked for 1980 days counter signed by SDO (D. Tax ), Telecom District , Vijayawada .: Ex. W9 is the copy of proceedings No.CM.VJ /DE.Cx1.VJ/86-87 dated 9-9-1986.
4. It is further submitted that the Respondent has replied that the Petitioner could not be given temporary status in view of his break in service . His juniors , S/Sri 1. P.K. Srinivasa Rao , 2. Jampani Venkateswara Rao, 3. M. Sai Babu , 4. K. Yesudas , and K. Nagabushanam were given temporary status condoning the break up service . Similarly, one Sri M.Pentaiah was granted temporary status condoning break up service of about 4 years . Similarly, Smt . V. Vijaya Kumari was also granted temporary status though having 3 years of break up service .
7. As against this evidence the Respondent filed the affidavit of Sri B. Jayaprakash , Divisional Engineer (Computers) and got marked the following documents : Ex . M1 is the copy of Appendix . III regarding preservation of records. Ex. M2 is the copy of letter dated 7-11-89 regarding grant of ten porary status and regularization to the casual labour. Ex . M3 is the copy ofoffice memo dated 12-2-99 regarding engagement of causal labourers . Ex . M4 is the copy of letter dated 7-6-1988 regarding recruitment of casual workers and persons on daily wages . Ex . M5 is the copy of DOT letter dated 22-6-88 regarding casual labour recruitment . Ex . M6 is the copy of DOT letter dated 30-3-85 regarding casual labour recruitment . Ex. M7 is the copy of Office memo dated 15-6-1999 regarding engagement of casual labour and reiterated the averments stated in the counter .
5. The Respondent filed counter affidavit of Sri B. Jayaprakash and denied the averments made by the Petitioner . Respondent admitting the proceedings before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. It is submitted that Petitioner worked as a Caasual Labour from 8-11-1981 to 31-3-1984 and re -engaged from 5.10.1990 to 25-3-1994 and thereafter he was engaged by the contractor . It is further subinitted that the engagement of the Petitioner was time bound work for specific period and there was no engagement after 1-4-1984. Similarly he was re - engaged from 5-10-1990 for a specific time bound work upto 25-3-1999 and thereafter he was not engaged as the work was completed. The casual labour engaged after 31-3-1984 were considered for temporary status and regularization in accordance with scheme formulated by the DOT dated 7-11-1989 pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 87 SC 1647. It is further submitted that the causal labourers who were reengaged after 1-4-1984 in the exigency of service have been considered for regularization and granted temporary status under the scheme dated 7-11-1989 and there is no scope to consider the claim of the Petitioner as he was re - engaged from 5-10-1990 in spite of the ban orders dated 30-3-1985 and the case of the Petitioner is not covered by the terms and conditions of the said scheme . The Petitioner was engagedi by the contractor from 1-4-1994 and there is no relationship of employer and employee and further there is no scope for granting temporary status and requested to dismiss the: petition.
8. It is not indispute that the Petitioner has filed OA No.1316/1994 on the file of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal stating that he was engaged from 1981 to 1984 and from 1990 to 1994 by the Respondent Management and that he is eligible for grant of teraporary status and consequential benefit of regularization of service . Further contended that his dis -engagement from 31-3-1984 to 1-4-1990 was due to non - availability of work . As such the break of 6 1/2 years has to be condoned for grant of temporary status . The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the petition directing the Respondent to consider the Petitioner for grant of temporary status and consequential regularization and also observed , "The break in service from 1984 to 1990 is definitely not attributable to the applicant . This is evident from the reply, as he was discharged from want of work. In other words , even though he presented himself, for work, he could not be engaged as there was no work . Hence , the applicant filing any petition for condonation of break in service does arise as the applicant cannot attribute any reasons caused by him for the break in service . In that view it has to be held that the break in service from 1984-90 is attributable to the Department as there was no work to be offered to him. If that be the case the period from 1984 to 1990 cannot be 6. The Petitioner filed his evidence affidavit in support of his case and got marked the following documents: Ex.WI is the copy of representation of WWI to the Respondent. Ex . W2 is the copy order of Honb'le:
10838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
juniors to him and they were retained in the work and subsequently confirmed temporary status .
12. It should be noted that the scheme under which casual labourers were granted tempoarary status and subsequent absorption, is one time settlement comes into force on 7-11-1989 . Under the scheme the casual labour whowere engaged after 31-3-1984 were considered for grant of temporary status. Since the Petitioner was not engaged after 31-3-1984, his name was not considered even though he made an application . The benefit of the scheme is granted to the casual labour who are on the rolls subsequent to 1-4-1984. It should be noted that casual labourers were engaged on time bound work for specific period and after completion of the period they were dis - engaged. Since the Petitioner was not engaged after 1-4-1984, his name was not considered on the ground that he is not eligible under the scheme . The Petitioner could not produce evidence that his juniors as alleged in the claim statement are similarly placed with him and they were granted temporary status under the scheme . In view of the circumstances that the Petitioner is not covered under the scheme dated 7-11-1989, he is not entitled for any relief . Therefore , I hold that the action of the Respondent Management in not engaging the Petitioner Sri J. Srinivas , Ex . Casual mazdoor isjustified and the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Award passed accordingly . Transmit .
treated as break in service attributable to the applicant and hence he should ask for condonation of break in service . Hence the casual service rendered by him from the date of his engagement from 1981 to 1984 has to be calculated and added to his service from 1990-94 and on that basis his cligibility for bringing him on temporary status and regularizing him should be considered . " The Respondent Management filed review petition No.1 / 1998 and the same was dismissed . The Respondent filed a Writ Petition No. 14130/1998 which was allowed granting the Petitioner herein. to raise an industrial dispute before this Tribunal . However , the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. has deferred with the view taken by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the condonation of break in service observed as follows : "We are unable to subscribe their view expressed by the tribunal that the absence of the first respondent from the service between 1984 and 1990 be ignored and the said period should be treated as if he was in service and that should be taken into consideration for grant of temporary status since the break in service from 1984 to 1990 is attributable to the Department as there was no work tobe offered to him . The Tribunal held that the period from 1984 to 1990 cannot be treated as break in service attributable to the first Respondent. The fact remains that the first Respondent did not render any service from 1984 to 1990 and his services were not utilised by the Petitioners herein . Therefore, the question of computation of service as such does not arise ."
Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 23rd day ofNovember, 2006 .
T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY , Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1 : Sri J. Srinivas
MW1 : Sri Borra Jayaprakash
Documnents marked for the Petitioner
Ex. W1 : Copy of representation of WW1 to the Respondent.
Ex. W2 : Copy of order of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 1360/94 dt. 29-8-97 .
Ex.W3 : Copy of application for grant of temporary status by WW1 .
Ex. W4 : Copy of certificate issued by JTO , Coaxial , Gudiwada certifying that WWI worked for 857 days .
9. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the F'ctitioner was engaged as a casual labour and put in more than 240 days of service and that he is entitled for grant of temporary status and furture absorption . He further contended that his juniors were retained and confirmed temporary status . On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that the reference does not disclose the date of dismissal of the Petitioner and further there are no records available with the Respondent to verify the engagement of Petitioner and further contended that even the Petitioner was engaged, as claimed by him he is not entitled for grant of temporary status since he is not covered by the scheme dated 7-11-1989 and further pointed out that Petitioner has admitted that he worked under contractor from 1-4-1994 . As such there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Respondent and the Petitioner . He further pointed out that since he was not engaged after 1-4-1984, the Petitioner is not eligible for grant of temporary status under the scheme dated 7-11-1989 .
Ex. W5: Copy of certificate issued by JTO , Coaxial , Gudiwada certifying that WW1 worked for 239 days .
10. The Petitioner also stated in his affidavit that he received a letter from the Respondent that his case was considered under the scheme and found that he is not cligible , since the break up service cannot be condoned.
Ex .W6 : Copy of certificate issued by JTO , E - 10B , Installation, Vijayawada certifying that WWI worked for 1980 days .
11. The Petitioner has claimed that his juniors were retained and confirmed temporary status , he could not produce any satisfactory evidence to show that they are
Ex .W7 : Copy of representation of WW1 to the Respondent reed . on 3-10-97 .
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
Ex. W8 : Copy of certificate issued by JTO , E - 10B , Installation , Vijayawada certifying that WW1 worked for 1980 days counter signed by SDO (D. Tax), Telecom District, Vijayawada.
Ex. W9 : Copy of proceedings No. CM . VJ /DE . Cxl . VJ / 86-87 did. 9-9-1986 .
Documents marked for the Respondent:
Ex. MI : Copy of Appendix . III reg . preservation of records.
Ex. M2: Copy of Ir. dtd . 7-11-89 reg . grant of temporary status and regularization to the casual labour .
Ex. M3 : Copy of office memo dtd . 12-2-99 reg . engagement of causal labourers .
Ex.M4 : Copy of Ir. dtd. 7-6-1988 reg . recruitment of casual workers and persons on daily wages .
Ex. M5 : Copy of DOT Ir . dt . 22-6-88 reg . casual labour recruitment .
Ex.M6 : Copy of DOT Ir . dtd. 30-3-85 reg. casual labour recruitment .
Ex.M7 : Copy of office memo dtd . 15-6-99 reg . engagement of causal labour .
नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5032.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंस्टिट्यूटफॉर 'सिसटम स्टडीज एण्ड एनालेसिस डी आर डी ओ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 138/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-14012/16/2003- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 S.O. 5032. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , No.II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Institute for Systems Studies and Analysis , DRDO and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No.L- 14012/ 16/2003- IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LAOUR COURT- II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI
10839
I. D. No.138/2003
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Shri Sonu , S/o . Shri Khacheru Ram, C/o . Arun General Store , H. No. 242, Vill : Shahabad Daulatpur, Delhi- 110042.
VERSUS
TheDirector, Institute for Systems Studies and Analysis, DRDO , Ministry of Defence , Metcalfe House, Delhi-110054
AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 14012/ 16/ 2003 - IR. (DU) Central Government dtd . 18-09-2003 has referred the following points for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the action of the management of Institute of System Studies and Analysis , DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Metcalfe House , New Delhi - 110 054 in terminating the services of Shri Sonu , S/o . Shri Khacheru , Ex . Helper on daily wages with effect from 1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ." The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was lucky enough that he got a call from the Employment Exchange for his interview with the management for the post of Helper and accordingly the management took an interview of the workman on 9-9-1999 and the workman successfully passed the same as the workman fulfilled all the requirements and eligibility for the appointment on the postof Helper and therefore , the workman was employed by the management on daily wages basis at the rate ofRs . 96 per day and the workman joined the services with the management on 17-9-1999.
That theworkman was initially appointed for 89 days only, but since the sincere, honest and hard working of the workman he was continued and in this way the workman completed more than 240 days of regular service withthe management without any break from 17-9-1999 till 31-12-2001.
That the workman never gave any chance of any complaint to the management and the services of the workman was always acclaimed and appreciated by the management as he is a very hard working, honest, dedicated and sincere worker .
That even then the workman was not given the perks, allowances and other facilities as he was entitled , which includes the Minimum Wages as fixed time to time by the appropriate Government and also the over time as the management used to get the work from the workman for 12 hours or more when the workman was being paid only for 10840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
demand letterdid not respond nor allowed the workman to jointhe duties and also has not paid the difference of earned minimumwages due, over time and other benefits accrued.
That the saidtermination by the management is illegal and arbitrary and the management has no legal right to resortto such illegal acts . That the workman is entitledto be reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits accrued tohim.
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the provision of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 are not applicable in as much as office ofthe responent/ management is not an Industry under the Industrial DisputeAct.
8 hours service . Not only this the management continued to pay the wages to the workman at the rate of Rs . 96 per day, when as per the own office order of the management/ Ministry ofDefence dated 21-5-1999 the workman was/is entitledto Rs . 144 per day (as applicable to the casual labourers holding temporary status but who have not carned any annual increment) and the said daily wages was effective from 1-1-1996 as per the said order. The workman is thus entitled to the difference of wage i.e. Rs . 48 per day from the day of his appointment i.c. 17-9-1999 as he has been paid only Rs . 96 per day instead of the actual wages of Rs . 144 per day. The workman is further entitled to the over time allowance as the management took the work from the workman more than 12 hours a day during the said tenure of service ans also for the work got done on Sundays /Holidays .
That the present reference is bad in law , without application of mind and in a stereo type manner hence liable to be dismissed .
That when the workman made a request to the management for the over time charges the management in a very arbitrary, illegal manner terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 1-1-2002 without assigning any reason and without issuing any show cause notice , memo , holding inquiry etc.
That the workman thus moved for conciliation proceedings before the ALC( C) , Delhi against the said illegal act of the management . However, due to rigid conduct of the management the matter could not be conciled and the management remained adamant not to reinstate the workman. Hence the appropriate Government passed the above order for adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal .
That the Institute for System tudies and Analyis (ISSA) located in Metcalfe House , Delhi is an establishment under DRDO . Ministry of Defence, Govt . of India reliable to sovereign functions of the Govermnent cannot claim to be an industry. The aim and objective of the institute is to carryout strategic analysis for DRDO with a viewto assess the weapon system requirement of the Armed Fores of the country. Itperforms its duties and functions under statutory provision.Apart from the research activities , the institute is entrusted with the task of carrying out certain special projects ofnational importance which are time bound, highly scientific , technical and sometimes classified in nature . The activity conducted by the respondent being a discharge of sovereign function of the state without involving any profit orientation and/or any business activity for gain the profit. The respondentdoes not fall under the category of industry defined under provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
That the workman duły submitted that when a person is deputed to complete a certain type of works or job he is deputed through proper channel with complete requirement no relaxation is given in age, qualification, experience as they are deputed for limited period on temporary basis and the management never told the workman that there may not be any project/job to work with the management and when the workman completed 665 days of regular and continuous service with the management he becomes entitled to a job in the organization/management.
It isspecifically denied that since the sincere, honest and hard working of the claimant he was continued in his service. However, it is submitted that the claimant was not taken against a regular and sanctioned post . He was appointed for a specific period of a classified project and he worked as a Casual Labourer w.c.f 17-09-1999 to 31-12-2001 intermittently in a time bound classified project, fundedjointly by DRDO and Army .
That the management has also not followed the settled labour laws and other provisions of law and the said act and conduct of the management of not paying the prescribed Minimum Wages , Over Time charges and other benefits as accrued to the workman time to time as per the provisions of law and when the workman made demand for the same he was thrown off from his job and the same amounts to discrimination and victimization of the labour .
It isabsolutely wrong hence denied that the claimant was not given the perks , allowances and other facilities as hewas entitled. However, the worker was not required to work beyond office hours or on holidays . Hence there does not arise any concept of payment of any kind of over time to the individual . Moreover, as per the letter of office he was to be paid @ Rs.96 per working day for whichhe was paid regularly from the project fund.
That since then the said illegal and arbitrary termination by the management the workman is unemployed and has no source of livelihood and is leading a very pathetic life .
That the workman also served the management with a demand letter but the manageinent after receipt of the
It isspecifically denied when the claimant request to themanagement for the over time charges the management in arbitrary and illegal manner terminated the services as 10841 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
The reference is replied thus:--
The action of the management of Institute of System Studies and Analysis , DRDO , Ministry of Defence , Metcalfe House , New Delhi- 110054 in terminating, the services of Shri Sonu, S/o . Shri Khacheru, Ex . Helper on dailywages with effect from 1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Award is given accordingly . Date:28-11-2006.
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2006 alleged . However , it is submitted that Shri Sonu was taken as a casual labour for a specifically time bound classified. Project for which the probable date ofcompetition (PDC) was December, 2000. As such there was no work for Shri Sonu for January , 2001 ; accordingly he was not paid for thisperiod . However , Shri Sonu was taken again as a casual labour for the unfinished task of the project from February, 2001 to December , 2001. There being no further allotted/ sanctioned project, the services of Shri Sonu were no longer required beyond 31st December, 2001. This was brought to his notice well in advance; in fact, this was conveyed verbally to him as early as on 6th November, 2001. Thus the allegation made by the individual that he was suddenly removed from the work and not allowed to enter the premises beyond 31st December , 2001 stands nullified. The job of Shri Sonu discontinued after the closure of the project.
का.आ. 5033.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/38/2004- आई. आर. ( बी- II) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 It was submitted that the claim of the claimant is false, fabricated, malafide and hence denied . However , the worker was not required to work beyond office hour or on holidays . Hence there does not arise any concept of payment of any kind of over time to the individual . Moreover as per the letter of office he was to be paid @ Rs.96 рег working day for which he was paid regularly from the project fund .
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim Statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .
S.O. 5033. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2004) of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Kanpur (U.P. ) as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006 .
[No. L- 12011/38/2004- IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that affidavit of the workman was filed on 12-12-2005. The workman was not present on several dates . The workman was not present on 18th July, 2006. Last opportunity for cvidence was given . The workman was not present on 7-9-2006. He was given several adjournments . He was not present on 22-11-2006. Evidence of the workman was closed. The management was heard and the case was reserved for award.
Industrial Dispute No. 29 & 30 of2004 IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN :
The Assistant General Secretary, U.P. Bank Employees Union , 426-W-2, Basant Vihar, Kanpur.
AND
It was submitted from the side of the management that the respondents are not Industry . They are engaged in sovereign function . It was further submitted that the workınan was taken on Project for specific period of a classified project and he worked as a casual labour intermittently in a time bound classified Project funded jointly by DRDO and Army .
TheDy.General Manager Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office, IR Cell, University Road,, Bhawanipuram,Meerut .
AWARD
The evidence of the workman was closed on 22-11-2006 . Several dates have been given to the workman for his cross - examination . He has sought several adjournments . He was not present on 22-11-2006 . His cvidence was closed and the management was heard. The workman has failed to prove the averments of his claim statement . He is not entitled to get any relief.
1. Central Government vide its notification No. L-12011/38/2004 IR (B - II) dated 3-6-2004 and L- 12011/39/ 2004- IR B - II dated 31-5-2004 has referred the following disputes for adjudication to this tribunal :-
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
by them . It has also not been disputed by the workmen that the matter is not pending with the bank which has duly been raised by the union for the workers particularly in respect of such employees who are still working as temporary attender. Accordingly it is held that the workmen arc not entitled for any relief and the reference is bound to be decided against them.
11. Reference is answered accordingly against the workmen.
SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5034.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013 /1/2006- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 S.O. 5034.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . SCCL and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No.L-22013/1 /2006 -IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer IN THE LOK ADALAT
(Forsettlement of case relating to CGIT-cum -Labour Court at Hyderabad under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act , 1987)
Wednesday, the Twenty Second day of November , Two Thousand and Six
PRESENT : 1. Sri K. Ashok Babu, Presiding Officer District Judge,
2. Sri A.K. Jayaprakasha Rao Advocate :Member
(Constituted U/ s 19 of the LSA Act, 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006 , dt. 22-8-2006) In the matter of case No. LCID No. 63/2005 PLAC . 22/2006
(on the file ofCGIT-cum - Labour Court at Hyderabad ) BETWEEN:
The General Secretary,
Singareni Collieries Employees Council ,
Godavarikhani , Karimnagar.
....Applicant
AND
3916G1/06-19
10843
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
TheGeneral Manager , M/ s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Mandamarri Division , Mandamarri , Adilabad Dist .
Respondents This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 22-11-2006 for settlement in the presence of the applicant appearing in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too , being present in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri V.R. Balachary, Advocate , on a perusal of the case record, after considering and hearing the case of both sides and with the consent of both sides , the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and delivered the following :.
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THEL.S.A. ACT, 1987
The Petitioner and the concerned workınan Sri Iylla Posham, EC . No. 2275083 having agreed to the detailed proposals of the Management [ Clauses ( a) to (g ) ] , the contentsofwhich are read over and explained to him in his language and agreed by him by signing the proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award ) , the Respondent is directed to take himback to duty forthwith as , Badli Coal Filler afresh wherever coal filling is available .
This LCID is disposed of accordingly.
Inagreement of the above , the parties/ counsel have affixed their signatures/ thumb impressions in the presence ofthe members of this Lok Adalat Bench .
Signature ofApplicant( s) (L.T.I. Iylla Posham) Signature of Respondent (s)
Signature of Counsel for Respondent ( s) Signature of Counsel forApplicant(s)
Signature ofMembers of the Bench .
2.
1.
Note : This Award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec . 21 ( 2 ) of the LSA Act, 1987 .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD ,
ID/LCID NO.63/2005
Proposalsofthe management:
In order tohave speedy and effective settlement of the cases before the Hon'ble Tribunal , Management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. agrees to put forth the following proposals:
(a) Absenteeism cases pending before Tribunal as fresh appointment as Badli Coal Filler without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by Company Medical Board .
(b) At least 100 musters in any of the two years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal .
10844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
(c) Absenteeism apart from pending cases will be considered only for such other cases provided dismissal is on or after 1-6-2006 . Cases not filed as on 31-5-2006 will not be treated for consideration on the ground of judicial precedents .
(d ) Irrespective of designations appointments will be asBCF afresh on coal filling where coal filling is available and need not be the same place where the workman was last employed.
(e) The observation of one year with minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and review every three months on coal filling only is absolutely essential . In the event of any short fall of attendance during the 3 months period, the services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry.
(f) Any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents /natural disease , treatment taken at Company's Hospitals will be deemed as attendance during the trial period.
(g) All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e. transfer, hours ofwork, days of rest, holidays etc. , for appointment afresh.
The Hon'ble Members may kindly take note of the above and pass consent award under Section 21 of LSA Act 1987. Sd/-
DGM (LAW) HYD (L.T.I. Iyalla Posham)
नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5035.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैद्राबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013/ 1/2006- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th December , 2006 S.O. 5035. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . SCCL and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No. L- 22013/1 /2006 -IR (C-II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] IN THE LOK ADALAT
(Forsettlement of case relating to CGIT -cum - Labour Court atHyderabad under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)
Wednesday the Twenty second day of November, Two Thousand and Six
:Presiding Officer PRESENT : 1. Sri K. Ashok Babu , DistrictJudge
Member 2. Sri A. K. JayaprakashaRao,: Advocate
(Constituted U/s 19 of the LSA Act, 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186/LSA/2006 dt. 22-8-2006) Inthe matter of case No. LCID No 67/2005 PLAC . 23/2006
(onthe file ofCGIT -cum - Labour Court at Hyderabad) BETWEEN:
TheGeneral Secretary,
Singareni Collieries Employees Council , Godavarikhani , Karimnagar.
....Applicant
AND
TheGeneralManager , M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Mandamarri Division , Mandamarri , Adilabad Dist .
.Respondent This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 22-11-2006 for settlement in the presence of the applicant appearing in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy and the Respondent too, being present inperson/represented by his counsel .
P.A.V.V.S. Sharma, Advocate , on a perusal of the case record, after considering and hearing the case of both sides and with the consent of both sides , the Lok Adalathas arrived at the following settlement and delivered the following:
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A. ACT, 1987
The Petitioner and the concerned workman Sri Sunarkari Lingaiah, EC . No. 2336-having agreed to the detailedproposals of the Management [Clauses (a) to (g ) ] , the content ofwhich are read over and explained to him in his language and agreed by him by signing the proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award) , the Respondent is directed to take him back to duty forthwith as , Badli Coal Filler afresh wherever coal filling is available .
ThisLCID is disposed of accordingly .
Inagreementof the above , the parties/ counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions in the presence ofthe members of this Lok Adalat Bench .
Signature of Respondent (s) Signature of Applicant (s )
(L.T.I. S. Lingaiah)
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Signature of Counsel for Respondent(s) Signature of Counsel forApplicant(s)
Signature ofMembers of the Bench .
1. Illegible
2. Illegible
Note : This Award is final and binding on all the parties and no appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec. 21(2) of the LSA Act, 1987 .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
ID/LCID NO.67/2005
:
Proposals of the management:
In order to have speedy and effective settlement of the cases before the Hon'ble Tribunal , Management of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. agrees to put forth the following proposals:
(a) Absenteeism cases pending before Tribunal as fresh appointment as Badli Coal Filler without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by Company Medical Board.
(b) At least 100 musters in any of the two years ofthe preceding 5 years of the dismissal .
(c) Absenteeism apart from pending cases willbe considered only for such other cases provided dismissal is on or after 1-6-2006. Cases not filed as on 31-5-2006 will not be treated for consideration on the ground of judicial precedents .
(d) Irrespective of designations appointment will be as BCF afresh on coal filling where coal filling is available and need not be the same place where the workman was last employed..
(c) The observation of one year with minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and review cvery three months on coal filling only is absolutely cssential . In the event of any short fall of attendance during the 3 months period, the services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry .
(1) Any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents /natural disease , treatment taken at Company's Hospitals will be deemed as attendance during the trial period.
(g) All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e. transfer , hours ofwork , days of rest, holidays etc. , for appointment afresh.
The Hon'ble Members may kindly take note of the above and pass consent award under section 21 of LSA Act 1987.
DGM (LAW) HYD (L.T.I. S. Lingaiah)
Consel for Respondent
10845
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
नई दिल्ली , 4 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5036.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय कार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22013/ 1/2006- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 4th December, 2006 S.O. 5036. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . SCCL and their workman,which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-12-2006 .
[No. L-22013/1/2006- IR (C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer IN THE LOK ADALAT
(Forsettlement ofcases relating to CGIT cum Labour Court at Hyderabad under Section 20 ofthe Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 )
Wednesday the Twenty second day of November , Two Thousand and Six
PRESENT:
1. Sri K. Ashok Babu, District Judge: PresidingOfficer. :
2. Sri A. K. Jayaprakasha Rao Advocate : Member (Constituted U/s 19 of the LSA Act. 1987 by the APSLSA Order ROC No. 186 /LSA/2006 dt. 22-8-2006) Inthe matter of case No.LCID No.781200S PLAC. 24/2006 (on the file of CGIT-cum- Labour Court
atHyderabad) BETWEEN
S. Rajaiah , S/o S. Lingaiah, R/ o Ramnagar , Naspur Colony, Adilabad District . AND
1. The Managing Director , M/ s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Singareni Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad .
2. The ProjectOfficer , IK & CH Mines, Sri Rampur , Adilabad District .
Respondents 10846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
This case is coming up before the Lok Adalat on 22-11-2006 for settlement in the presence of the applicant appcaring in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri G.Vidyasagar , Adv. and the Respondent too, being present in person/ represented by his counsel , Sri V. R. Balachary. Advocate,on a perusal of the case record, after considering and hearing the case of both sides and with the consent of both sides , the Lok Adalat has arrived at the following settlement and delivered the following :
AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE L.S.A.
ACT. 1987
The Petitioner and the concerned workman Sri S. Rajaiah , having agreed to the detailed proposals of the Management [ Clauses ( a) to (g ) ] , the contents of which are read over and explained to him in his language and agreed by him by signing the proposal sheet (enclosed to the Award ) , the Respondent is directed to take him back to duty forthwith as Badli Coal Filler afresh wherever coal filling is available .
This LCID is disposed of accordingly .
In agrcernent of the above , the parties/counsel have affixed their signatures/thumb impressions in the presence of the members of this Lok Adalat Bench .
Sigriature ofApplicant (s) ( L.T. I S. Rajaiah )
Signature of Respondent (s)
Sd/- Illegible
Signature of Counsel for Respondent ( s )
Sd/- Illegible
Signature of Counsel for Applicant ( S) Signature of Members of the Bench .
Sd/- Illegible
Note : This Award is that binding or/ all the parties and he appeal shall lie to any court as per Sec . (2 ) of the LSA Act , 1987 .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRE GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, HYDERABAD
ID/LICD No. 78/05
Proposals of the management:
In order to have speedy and effective settlement of the cases before the Hon'ble Tribunal , Management of Sigareni Collicries Co. Ltd. agrees to put forth the following proposals :
(a) Absentecisin cases pending before Tribunal as fresh. appointment as Badli Coal Filler without back wages and continuity of service subject to medical fitness by CompanyMedical Board .
(b) Ai least 100 musters in any of the two years of the preceding 5 years of the dismissal .
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] (c) Absenteeism apart from pending cases will be considered only for such other cases provided dismissal is on or after 1-6-2006 . Cases not filed as on 31-5-2006 will not be treated for consi- deration on the ground of judicial precedents .
(d) Irrespective of designations appointment will be as BCF afresh on coal filling where coal filling is available and need not be the same place where the workman was last employed .
(e) The observation of one year with minimum mandatory 20 musters every month and review every three months on coal filling only is absolutely essential . In the event of any short fall of attendance during the 3 months period, the services will be terminated without any further notice and enquiry .
(f) Any forced absenteeism on account of mine accidents/natural disease , treatment taken at Company's Hospitals will be deemed as attendance during the trial period.
(g) All other usual terms and conditions of appointment will be applicable i.e. transfer , hours of work, days of rest, holidays etc., for appointment afresh.
The Hon'ble Members may kindly take note of the above and pass consent award under Section 21 of LSA Act1987 . Sd/-
DGM ( LAW) HYD P.S. Rao (L.T.I. S. Rajaiah)
Consel for Respondent नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5037.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोरपोरेशन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/46/2003- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006
S.O. 5037. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.91 /2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , New Delhi No. 2 , now as shown in the Annexure in, the Industrial Dispute between the management of CorporationBank and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006 .
[No. L- 12011 /46/2003 - IR(B - II )] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 10847 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
qualification required for sub- staff and recommended hinr forappointment.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI
That all of a sudden the services of the claimant were terminated vide letter dated 20-4-2002 without any reason. It is submitted that several contemporary persons who hadjoined as casual sub- staff have been made permanent and the claimant was ignored with malafide intentions .
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 91/2003
IN THEMATTER OF :
Shri Dheeraj Sharma ,
C/ o . The Secretary, Corporation Bank Employees ' Union , 16/10 , Karol Bagh , New Delhi .
That the termination of the services of the claimant was illgal , unjustified and unwarranted. It is submitted that the vacancies do exist with the management and contemporary person's have been made permanent and the claimant has been left with the reasons best known to the management . The claimant is hard working and honest person and the same has been acknowledged and appreciated by the management .
Versus
The Manager ,
Corporation Bank, Overseas Branch ,
K.G. Marg , Ncw Delhi .
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 120 11 /46/ 2003 - IR ( B - II ) Central Government Dt. 9-6-2003 has referred the following points for adjudication .
The points run as hereunder :-
The management has filed Written Statement. In the Written Statement it has been stated that the Overseas Branch of the Bank was opened in the year 1998 at the same premises where the IFB branch was functioning and till 1999 the same temporary sub- staff worked for IFB as well as overseas branch . It is submitted that due to increase ofwork the Overseas Branch engaged the claimant Shri Dheeraj Sharma for specific periods from time to time on contract basis from 19-7-1999 pending arrangements for posting of permanent sub - staff. It is further submitted that for each such engagement of the claimant, he was issued with the order stipulating the period of appointment, the purpose of engagement and with a specific stipulation that the temporary appointment will automatically cease on the date specified in the order.
"Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Shri Dheeraj Sharma, Temporary Peon w.e.f. 23-4-2002 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled 10."
That it is submitted that the engagement of the claimant Shri Dheeraj sharma as Temporary sub- staff in the Overseas Branch was without the permission of Zonal Office or Head Office . It is further submitted that the Overseas Branch engaged the services of the claimant Shri Dheeraj Sharma only on contract basis on their own and without following the guidelines issued for the appointment oftemporary sub- staff and for such engagement claimant does not acquire any vested right for permanent absorption .
The workman applicant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim it has been stated that he was appointed on the post of Temporary Sub - staff on 27-7-1998 at the Narcla Branch of the Respondent Bank since the inception of the said Branch . The claimant worked at the said Branch till 18-7-1999 and thereafter , was transferred to the overseas Branch and worked there till 22-4-2002 .
That it is submitted that the claimant Shri Dheeraj
Sharma even did not fulfill the basic eligibility criteria for the selection in the panel of temporary sub- staff of the Branch as enumerated in the circular bearing reference No.97/98 dated 18-3-1998 issued by Bank containing the guidelines for the appointment of sub - staff.
That it is submitted that the claimant was issued appointment letter for cach month and was paid his salary/ wages accordingly. It is submitted that the claimant has continuously worked with effect from 27-07-1998 in Branches at Narela and Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi till 22-4-2002 . The service of the claimant was appreciated by the officers of the management . The claimant was also paid the miscellancous expenses including conveyance cic .
It is further submitted that the claimant was not empanelled as temporary sub- staff with Overseas Branch as per the procedure prescribed for the appointment of tempoary sub - staff and was not even sponsored by Employment Exchange.
That the Chief Manager of the Overseas Branch of the management has vide letter dated 15-1-2002 informed the General Manager , Zonal Manager that the services of the claimant were satisfactory and he is registered with cmployment exchange and fulfills the requisite educational
That it is submitted that claimant was engaged only for specific periods from time to time purely on contract basis againt pending arrangements for posting of permanent 10848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) sub- staff, as such his engagement cannot be termed as regular without following the due procedure for the appointment of temporary sub - staff . It is further submitted that in the event of non - renewal of such contract , the claimant cannot initiate any action against the Bank . It is pertinentto mention here that in every order of temporary appointment , it was clearly mentioned/ stipulated that the Bank does not guranttee any permanent appointment on expiry of the period of temporary appointment, as such the engagement and disengagement of the claimant is well covered u/ s 2 (oo ) (bb ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Itis submitted that the claimant was engaged only for specific periods from time to time purely on contract basis against pending arrangements for posting of permanent sub - staff, as such his engagement cannot be termed as continuous /regular without following the due procedure for the appointment of temporary sub - staff. It is further submitted that for each such engagement of the claimant, he was issued with the order stipulating the period of appointment , the purpose of engagement and with a specific stipulation that the temporary appointment will automatically cease on the date specified in the order and accordingly the wages paid to the claimant . It is denied that the claimant has continuously worked w.e.f. 27-7-1998 inBranch at Narela and Kasturba Gandhi Marg , New Delhi till 22-4-2002 . It is denied that the service of the claimant was appreciated by the officers of the management . It is further denied that the claimant was also paid miscellaneous expenses including conveyance etc.
That the Overseas Branch did not engage the claimant further on contract basis from 23-4-2002 as per the strict guidelines enumerated in the Circular No. 97/98 dated 18-3-1988 whereby the Head Office advised the concerned Branches to initiate the steps for filling up the vacancies (hrough internal sources through redeployment of surplus or by way of transfer etc.
That in terms of the aforesaid Circular of the Head Office, one permanent sub - staff Shri Brahmadeo Manjhi was transferred from Connaught Circus Branch to Overseas Branch owing to surplus sub - staff at Connaught Circus sranch . It is submitted that there were six sub- staff at Connaught Circus Branch at the relevant time and it was found that the strength of sub - staff was excessive , as such there was a need for redeployment of sub - staff for needy branches . It is further submitted that the current sanctioned sub- staff strength of Connaught Circus Branch was only 3 excluding the Armed Guard. Therefore , the posting of Shri Brahmadeo Manjhi from the Connaught Circus Branch to Overseas Branch was on account of such redeployment.
It is not denied that the Chief Manager of the Overseas Branch of the management has vide letter dated 15-1-2002 informed the General Manager , Zonal Office that the services of the claimant was satisfactory and he is registered with employment exchange and fulfills requisite educational qualification required for sub - staff and recommended him for appointment . It is pertinent to mention that the claimant Shri Dheeraj Sharma even did not fulfill the basic eligibility criteria for the selection in the panel of temporary sub- staff of the Branch as enumerated in the circularbearing reference No. 97/98 dated 18-3-1998 issued by Bank containing the guidelines for the appointment of sub- staff. It is further submitted that the claimant was not empanelled as temporary sub- staff with Overseas Branch as per the procedure prescribed for the appointment of temporary sub - staff and was not even sponsored by Employment Exchange, as such the claimant cannot be recommended for the appointment .
It is submitted that the identification, sanction, deployment and redeployment of the manpower will be the exclusive domain of administration based on the needs of the Bank from time to time. It is further submitted that Bank can engage the temporary sub - staff for contingencies arising out of leave/ absence of permanent sub- staff for any temporary increase in the work and the temporary sub- staff can also be engaged against the permanent vacancy of sub - staff pending arrangements for providing the services of permanent sub - staff by way of transfer or by way of recruitment .
It is denied that the claimant belongs to economically poor family. It is denied for want of knowledge that the claimant is seventh standard pass but tenth standard fail .
It is denied that all of a sudden the services of the claimantwere terminated vide letter dated 20-4-2002 without any reason . It is further denied that the several contemporary persons who had joined as casual sub - staff have beenmade permanent and the claimant was ignored withmalafide intentions . The claimant be put to strict proof ofthe averments made in the para under reply . In this regard, it is submitted that the claimant was engaged on contractual basis and his services would automatically cease on the date specified in the order for engaging the services of claimant, as such the question of termination of the claimant does not arise at all . It is submitted that the claimant was very well aware of this fact that he was engaged purely on contractual basis for specific periods for which the claimant does not acquire any vested right for permanent absorbtion.
It is denied that the claimant was appointed on the post of temporary sub - staff on 27-7-1998 at the Narela Branch of the Respondent Bank since the inception of the said Branch . It is further denied that the claimant worked at the said Branch till 18-8-1999 and thereafter , was transferred to the Overseas Branch and worked their till 22-4-2002 . The claimant be put to strict proof of the averments made in the para under reply.
It isdenied that the termination of the services of the claimant was illegal, unjustified and unwarranted. It is further denied that the vacancies do exist with the management and contemporary persons have been made permanent and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
the claimant has been left with the reasons best known to management. The preliminary objections/submissions made herein above may kindly be read as part and parcel of the paraunder replyas the contents ofthe same are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity .
It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindlybe pleased to dismiss the statement ofclaim in view of the preliminary objection/submissions made herein above, in the interest ofjustice.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement andhas denied most ofthe paras of the Written Statement. The management has also denied most of the parasofthe claim statement..
Evidence of both the parties has been taken.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the following Issues arise for decision:
1. Whether the work is of continuous and regular nature and the workman has completed 240 days work during the period ofhis employment i.e. from 27-07-1998 to 22-04-2002.
2. Whether the case is covered under Section 2 ( oo) (bb) ofthe ID Act, 1947 .
3. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement.
4. Whether the workman is entitled to back wages .
IssueNo.1 .
It was submitted from the side of the workman that the workman worked continuously on the post of temporarysub-staff w.e.f. 27-7-1998 till 22-04-2002 . He was issued 30 days appointment letters invariably during the period of his engagement . The management has admitted that appointment letters were given to the workman for 30 days period from02-07-1999 till 01-04-2002 . The appointment letters are on record.
Fromperusal ofthe appointment letters it transpires that 30 days appointment letters have been given in sequence on Ist ofeach month regularly. In the last letter it has been mentioned that the workman has previously worked as casñal labourer in the Bank for 919 days . So it is admitted case of the management that appointment letters tothe workman applicant were given from 02-07-1999till 01-04-2002 and the workman has almost worked for 930 days.
It was submitted from the side of the management that the identification , sanction, deployment and rc-deployment of the manpower will be the exclusive domain of administration based on the needs of the Bank from time to time . It is further submitted that Bank can engage the
10849
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
temporary sub -staff for contingencies arising out of leave/ absence ofpermanent sub - staff for any temporary increase in the work and the temporary sub- staff can also be engaged against the permanent vacancy of sub- staff pending arrangements for providing the services of permanent sub -staff by way of transfer or by way of recruitment.
Itisfurther submitted that the claimant was engaged onlyfor specific periods from time to time purely on contract basis against pending arrangements for posting of permanent sub-staff, as such his engagement cannot be termed as continuous/regular without following the due procedure for the appointment of temporary sub - staff. It is further submitted that for each such engagement of the claimant, he was issued with the order stipulating the period of appointment, the purpose of engagement and with a specific stipulation that the temporary appointment will automatically cease on the date specified in the order and accordingly the wages paid to the claimant .
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that theworkman was engaged on 27-07-1998 at Narela Branch ofthe respondent/Bank since inception of the said branch. The claimant worked in the Narela Branch till 18-07-1999 and thereafter he was transferred to the Overseas Branch and worked till 22-04-2002 . It is admitted case of the management that Narela Branch was setup in the year 1998. It isnot the case of the management that there was some other peon appointed with the Branch when the Branch was setup . So it is found proved that the workman was engaged from27-07-1998 at NarelaBranch when this Branch wasopened.
The 1st appointment letter issued to the workman dated19-9-1999 has been signed by the Overseas Sr. Branch Manager. So the case of the workman that he was transferred from Narela Branch to Overseas Branch is correct .
From perusal of the documentary as well as oral evidence it is proved that the workman was initially engaged at Narela Branch when the Branch was setup in 1998 and thereafter he was transferred to Overseas Branch in 1999 . MW 1 has stated that he cannot say whether the workman has started working with the Corporation Bank w.e.f. 27-7-1998 . This evasive reply confirms the case of the workman that he was engaged w.e.f. 27-7-1998 at Narela Branch when the Branch was opened and thereafter he was transferred to Overseas Branch . The workman has worked regularly from 27-7-1998 to 23-4-2002 with the respondents at the post of sub - staff.
The work of sub - staff is a regular and continuous nature of work. The workman has worked at two branches viz . Narela Branch and Overseas Branch w.e.f. 27-7-1998 to 23-4-2002 . His engagement is regular as he was transferred from one branch to the other.
10850
It was submitted from the side of the management that there were excess staff, so the workman was retrenched. In view of the provision of the BPS retrenchment compensation is to be paid in case a workman has worked for more than 6 months and he has been given definite appointment . In view of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 retrenchment compensation is to be paid to a workman in every departinent in case the work is of regular and continuous nature and the workman has performed 240 days work in the preceding year or in all the years of his engagement . Thus , I find it proved that the workman has worked regularly from 27-7-1998 to 23-4-2002 and his services have been terminated without payment of any retrenchment compensation and salary in lieu of one month's notice . The work is of regular and continuous nature . The workman has performed 240 days work atleast in 1999 , 2000 and 2001. This issue is decided accordingly .
Issue No. 2 .
It was submitted from the side of the workman that he has been given one month's appointment every time . It transpires from perusal of the record that appointment letters have been issued on every 1st of the month up to the 30th /31st of that month .
It was submitted that every time fixed term appointment has been given and the appointment came to an end on the last day of the month but again started on the 1st of the next month . Such appointments cannot be continuous service .
It was submitted from the side of the workman that engagement of casual , badlis and temporaries has been made unfair labour practice in the ID Act, 1947. The management has almost issued approximately 30 appointment letters and cach for one month . As such the management has engaged this workman as a temporary and casual workman again and again . Such practice amounts to unfair labour practice in view of the provision of the ID Act , 1947 and it has been made punitive .
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions of section 25 F are not complied . In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workman .
It was further submitted that Section 25 T provides that the management should not indulge in unfair labour practice . Section 25 U provides that a person who commits any unfair labour practice will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs . 1000/ -or with both . The intention of the legislature in enacting 25 T & 25 U is obvious . The legislature wanted that in case Casual and Badlis are engaged for a long period , it amounts to unfair labour practice . There is punitive clause for committing unfair labour practice .
It was submitted from the side of the workman that Vth Schedule of the ID Act specifies some practices as
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] unfair labour practice . The Vth Schedule clause 10 provides the criteria for ascertaining unfair labour practice . It is extracted as hereunder :-
"To employ workman as Badlis , Casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of a permanent workman . "
Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule stipulates that in case the workmen are employed as Casuals, Badlis or Temporary and they are continued as such for years , it will amount to unfair labour practice . In the instant case the workman has been continued as casual and temporary for 8 years . It establishes to the hilt that the respondent management has committed unfair labour practice . The workman has been engaged for 240 days as casual and temporary and thereafter he has been removed . He has not been paid retrenchment compensation.
It was submitted that Section 25 F, G , T, U and Clause 10 ofthe Vth Schedule of the ID Act have been deliberately violated.
Inthe Constitution Bench Judgment in Uına Devi's case these matters were not at issue . In case a workman has worked for 240 days and the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid section 25 F of the ID. Act is attracted . There is no cessation of his services . He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law . In case there is breach of section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .
ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workinen belonging to poor seginent of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so Section 25 F, U , T and Clause 10 of Vth Schedule have been enacted . The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice . A workman should not be engaged for years and then he should be removed all of a sudden. There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment . In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.
Thus , management has followed unfair labour practice in giving 30-40 appointments to this workman . He has been engaged 30 times or more as temporary workıman or casual labour during 27-7-1998 to 23-4-2002. This case is not coveredby Section 2 ( oo) (bb ) as the management has mis - exercised or exercised malafidely its power. 1t was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has putdown a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement . The 10851 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
on itsconsideration and direct reinstatement. Thejudgment citedby the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case .
The case of the workman is not covered u/s 2 (00) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947. This issue is decided accordingly. IssueNo.3.
Hon 'ble Apex Court has held that employment can onlybe made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme.
It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the Government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .
My attention was drawn by the Ld . Counsel of the workman to 2000 LLR 523 State of UP and Rajender Singh . The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment. In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid . This case law squarely covers the instant case .
Ithas been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule isto reinstate him with full back wages .
The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provision of ID Act un - constitutional . The Government has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the rulc ofpublic employment. At the time of making temporary appointments Articles 14, 16, 21 , 23, 226 & 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional mandate that the Government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee .
Myattention was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even ifserving for a short period should be reinstated.
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in the instant case Section 25 F, G of the ID Act is attracted. In Section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workmanhas performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation .
It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions of Section 25F are not complied. In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workman who has continuously worked for 240 days .
No such Article of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector Units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme , such a discrimination will amount to vicious discrimination . The Government of Public Sector Unit will go on resorting to the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary and adhoc appointments to their favourites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provision of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been dcclared un -constitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions cnumerated there in or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations .
Itwas further submitted that Section 25 T provides that the management should not indulge in unfair labour practice. Section 25 U provides that a person who commits any unfair labour practice will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs . 1000/- or with both . The intention of the legislature in enacting 25 T & 25 U is obvious . The legislature wanted that in case Casual and Badlis are engaged for a long period, it amounts to unfair labour practice . There is punitive clause for committing unfair labour practice.
Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that Vth Schedule of the ID Act specifies some practices as unfair labour practice . The Vth Schedule clause 10 provides the criteria for ascertaining unfair labour practice . It is extracted as hereunder : -
Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may , by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any , as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . According to this benign provision the labour court has the authorityto set aside the order ofdischarge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit.
"To employ workman as Badlis , Casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of a permanent workman . "
The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annuled Section 11 A of the ID Act and the legislature has authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge
3916 GI/06-20 10852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule stipulates that in case the workmen are employed as Casuals, Badlis or Temporary and they are continued as such for years, it will amount to unfair labour practice . In the instant case the workman has been continued as casual and temporary for 8 years . It establishes to the hilt that the respondent management has committed unfair labour practice . The workman has been engaged for 8 years as casual and temporary and thereafter he has been removed . He has not been paid retrenchiment compensation .
It was submitted that Section 25 F, G , T, U and Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act have been deliberately violated.
In the Constitution Bench Judgment in Uma Devi's case these matters were not at issue . In case a workman has worked for 8 years and the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted . There is no cessation of his services . He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law . In case there is breach of Section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .
ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so Section 25F , U , T and Clause 10 of Vth Schedule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice. The workman should not be engaged for years and then he should be removed all of a sudden . There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment . In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.
It was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down a complete han on regularization and reinstatement . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that employment can only be made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequal are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme .
It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .
The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provision of ID Act un- constitutional . The Government
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the ruleofpublic employment. At the time of making temporary appointmentsArticles 14, 16, 21 , 23 , 226 & 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional mandate that the government is atliberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee.
No suchArticle of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector Units cancontinue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme , such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government of Public Sector Unit will go on resortingto the method pick and choose policy and give temporary and adhoc appointments to their favourites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provision of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared un-constitutional. Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations .
Section 11 Aof the ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any , as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . According to this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 ( 4) Scale has not annulled Section 11 A of the ID Act and the legislature has authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement . The judgment citedby the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case .
A three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in 1993 I1 - LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also of the dependents . So in case of illegal termination of service the workman should be reinstated.
Itwas further submitted by the management that the workman has been given fixed term appointment . It has been held in 2006 LLR 68 that termination in terms of appointment letter is justified. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the workman has not proved that the work is 10853 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedings back wages need not be allowed . In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.
of continuing nature and it is still existing . So termination after the period of fixed term engagement has been held valid. In the instant case the work is still continuing . This case law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
In 2004 VIII AD SC 444 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of reinstatement with 25 % back wages .
My attention was drawn to 2006 LLR 68. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that engagement and extension of services ofthe workman was for a specific period and hence termination is not illegal and the termination is in accordance to the provisions of 2(00 ) (bb) . In this case also the Hon'ble Apex Court found that it is not proved that the work is of existing nature .
In 1978 Lab IC 1968 three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that payment of full back wages is the normal rule . In case services have been illegally terminated either by dismissal or discharge or retrenchment, in such circumstance the workman is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness . In the instant case the workman was always ready to work but he was not permitted on account of invalid act of the employer.
In (1997) 11 SCC 521 the Hon'ble Apex Court found the termination valid as the appointment was for specified period of two months .
InAIR 2002 SC 1313 the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the back wages to 25 %.
In 2005 IV AD SC 39 - three Judges Bench of the Hon'bleApexCourt held that reinstatement with full back wages is justified. In this case the workman has performed more than 240 days work and he has been retrenched without payment of compensation and pay in lieu ofnotice .
Reinstatement should not be misconceived for regularization . By the order of reinstatement the status quo ante of the workman is restored . He is given back wages in order to compensate him for his illegal dis - engagement . This is a special remedy provided in ID Act and it has not been annulled and set aside by any judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too .
In such cases the workman is reinstated with back wages and the respondents have every right, after payment ofback wages and reinstatement, to retrench him validly following the principles of first come last go so that Section 25, G & H of the ID Act are not violated .
The workman deserves reinstatement . This issue is decided accordingly .
Issue No. 4.
It was submitted from the side of the management that reinstatement is not the only remedy . In such cases theworkman may be given compensation . Section II A of the ID Act, 1947 provides that in case of dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement should be ordered . Ithas been held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule . The statute provides for reinstatement . In certain exceptional cases where the undertaking has been closed down or it has become sick there may be order for payment ofcompensation .
In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman is entitled to get 25 % back wages . This issue is decided accordingly.
The reference is replied thus :-
The action of the management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Shri Dheeraj Sharma , Temporary Peon w.e.f. 23-04-2002 is not justified . The management is directed to reinstate the workman along with 25% back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award.
It was further submitted that payment of full back wages is not the natural consequence of the order of discharge or dismissal being set aside . It has been held in (2003) 6 SCC 141 that it is incumbent upon the labour court to decide the quantum of back wages . In the instant case the matter involved was a case of theft of large quantity of Aluminum Wire. Departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice so dismissal was found bad. In such circumstance the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order for payment of full back wages was not justified if termination is set aside . In PGI Vs. Raj Kumar (2001 ) 2 SCC 54 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the 60 % award of back wages of the Tribunal .
Award is given accordingly.
Date: 01-12-2006 .
R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer It has been further held in this case that payment of back wages having discretionary element involved it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case . No definite formula can be evolved .
नई दिल्ली , 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5038. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडीकेट बैंक It has been further held in this case that payment of back wages in its entirety is the statutory sanction . In (2003) 4 SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex. Court held that in view ofdelay 10854
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
2. As common question of facts and law are involved inboth the above references therefore tribunal intends to dispose off them by means of this common award .
के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/ 39/2004- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]
राजिन्दर कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
Ncw Delhi , the 5th December , 2006
3. It is common ground of the parties concerned that the workmen are working with the opposite party bank as temporary attender . It is also common ground that the workmen at the initial stage had worked as daily wager as perGovernment approach paper the bank has entered into an agreement with the recognised union of the bank employees on 9-4-96 and 6-7-98 and on the basis of the same the opposite party bank has prepared the panel of temporary attenders who have drawn their salary from the eastablishment head of the bank and worked for 90 days or more between 1-1-82 to 31-12-89 . Based on settlement bank has again issued its circular dated 23-6-97 to prepar the following panels : ---
S.O. 5038. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industria Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.30/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Kanpur ( U.P.) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
Panel 1 : This panel was consisted of candidates [No. L- 12011/39 /2004- IR(B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
who have worked for 240 days or more astemporary attender in a consequtive period of 12 months during any period between 1-1-82 to 31-12-89 and has been paid salary by debite to the establish- ment account of the bank .
BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , KANPUR
Industrial Dispute No. 29 of 2004 & 30 of 2004
In the matter of dispute between:
Panel 2 : This panel was consisted of candidates who have worked for 90 days or more as temporary attender between 1-1-82 to 31-12-89 and has been paid salary by debit to the establishment account of thebank .
The Assistant General Secretary U.P. Bank Employees Union 426-W- 2 Basant Vihar Kanpur.
AND
The Dy . General Manager SyndicateBank Zonal Office IR Cell University Road Bhawanipuram Meerut .
AWARD
1. Central Government vide its notification No. L- 120 11/ 38/ 2004- IR ( B - II ) dated 3-6-2004 and L- 12011/39/ 2004 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 31-5-2004 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :----
4. The case of the workmen is that they are employed as temporary attender by the opposite party bank and since regular attender was promoted and transferred from the branch where they were working they continued as temporary attender in that vacancy. The opposite party bank should have failed the temporary vacancy within 90 days but instead of duing so opposite party is employing the workmen as temporary attender for the last several years . It has also been pleaded that at present the workmen are getting the initial basic pay plus usual allowances admissible to them under service rules . It has been claimed by them that the action of the bank in continuing him to be temporary attender and not regularising or absorbing them inthe permanent employment of the bank amounts to an act of Unfair Labour Practice and the workmen be held to be a regular and permanent employee of the opposit party bank.
( 1 ) Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank to deny regularisation/absorption ofservice of Sri Shanti Swroop S/ o Sri U.C. Sharma working as temporary attender w.e.f. 22-5-86 is justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?
(2 ) Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank to deny regularisation/ absorption of service of Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta working as temporary attender w.e.f. 23-10-90 is justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?
5. On the other hand the opposit party has contested the claim of the workmen and it has been alleged by them that since the workmen have not worked temporary attender and have not drawn salary by debit to the establishment head during the revelant period their names were not included in panel I or panel II as above and the bank has recently regularised the services of the temporary attenders [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
whose names were appearing in the panel I or II strictly in tcrims of approach paper issued by the Government and in terms of settlement dated 9-4-96 and 6-7-98 . With regadto other temporary attenders it has been alleged that the union has taken up the matter with the bank as per agenda 4of Joint meeting dated 9-12-02 which has been circulated hy the bank. The management has informed that the regularisation shall be in tune with the need of the bank and as per man power the planning based on Government guidlines and therefore the workmen have got no claim for permanent absorption in the bank nor they can claim any lien against any post as a matter of right . On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed that the claim of the workmen suffers from merit and is premature , therefore workmen be held entitled to no relief.
6. After exchange of pleadings between the parties both partics adduced oral as well as ducumentary evidence in support of their respective cases .
7. Tribunal has heard arguments at length advanced by the contesting parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
8. In the instant case it has to be seen if the workmen can claim regularisation of their service while working temporary attender with the opposite party . It is settled principle of law that what would be the man power under an organisation either on temporary basis or permanent basis is the sole domain of the employer and the same cannot be interfered through judicial process . It has also come in the pleadings of the parties that the cases which are not covered under the approach paper issed by the Government on the basis of management prepared panels arc under active consideration before the management and no positive decision has so far been arrived at in the matter. It is also settled law that à person cannot claim regulari- sation or absorption as a matter of right unless his services arc regularised hy adhering the relevant recruitment rules .
9. After giving anxious considerations to the reveal contentions of the contesting parties , tribunal is of the view that the present claim of the workman is premature because of the fact that those matters with regard to temporary attenders who are not covered by the above panels arc under active consideration before the management of opposite party . On the basis of premature clains the workman cannot be allowed to avail the relief as claimed by them in the present dispute .
10. For the reasons discussed above , the tribunal is of the opinion that the present claim of the workmen are premature and they cannot be awarded any relief as claimed by them. It has also not been disputed by the workmen that the matter is not pending with the bank which has duly been raised by the union for the workers particularly in respect of such employees who are still working as temporary attenders . Accordingly it is held that the
10855
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
workmen are not entitled for any relief and the reference is bound to be decided against them.
11. Reference is answered accordingly against the workmen.
SURESH CHANDRA, PresidingOfficer.
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006 का.आ. 5039. 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 , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 105/2004 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/54/2004- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December, 2006 S.O. 5039. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 105/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on5-12-2006.
[No. L-40012/54/2004- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 105/2004
Ref. No. L-40012/ 54/2004 - IR (DU) Dt. 5-10-2004 BETWEEN :
Sh.Rama Prasad S/o Sh . Sukhraj . Vill. Belwar (Tarkulhi) P.O. Jhangha, Gorakhpur
AND
I. The Telecom Distric Manager , TelecomDeptt. BSNL, Bahraich-271865 .
10856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
The worker has filed following documents:
1. Photo copy of reference orderdt . 5-10-2004 2. The Chief General Manager , Telecommunication East, Lucknow/ ThePrincipal General Manager , Pee Kay Bhawan , Lucknow -226001.
2. Photo copy of the recommendation for grant of temporary status , showing the date of engagement of the worker .
3. Photo copy of memo dt. 18-7-2000
AWARD
4. Photo copy ofthe awarddt. 23-11-2000
5. Photo copy of letter dt. 3-7-2002 along with list of left out casual labourers .
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referred the following dispute No. L-40012/54/2004- IR ( DU ) Dt . 5-10-2004 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT - cum - Labour Court, Lucknow:
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Behraich in terminating the services of Sri Rama Prasad S/o Sri Sukhraj , Daily Labour w.e.f. 31-7-2001 is legal and justified? If not, towhat relief the workman is entitled?"
The case of the disputant Sri Rama Prasad is thathe joined his service as daily wages casual labour (Class IV post ) in August , 1998 in serious exigency of departmental work . Since then he is working on the said post and as a hard-working labourer and has worked for more than 240 days of service in the preceding year . The Telecom District Manager , Bahraich has terminated the services of the disputant w.c.f. 31-7-01 without any valid reason absolutely illegal , arbitrary , malafide and discriminatory manner , orally without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. It is further alleged that the opposite party i.c. Chief General Manager , Telecom U. P. Circle Hazratganj , Lucknow confirmed all casual labours who were in the employment on the date of issue of Memo dated 18-7- 2000 and granted temporary status . It is also alleged that one Sri Anurag Pradesh Tewari, similarly situated casual labour has filed case I. D. No. 24/98 before this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Tribunal passed award for reinstatement with 25% back wags . Sri Rama Prasad has submitted that in the year 2002 the department prepared a list of casual labourers on 3-7-02 and the name of the Sri Ram Prasad was available in this regard. The said list was forwarded by Dy. General Manager ( Admn. ) to Asstt . Director ( Personnel ) BSNL , Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi for regularisation of casual labours left out cases . It is also submitted that the employers violated the provisons of Section 25N of the I.D. Act, 1947 besides Section 25G of the 1.D. Act and as his juniors were retained and allowed to continue in service . Worker has also submitted that new hands have been engaged but no opportunity of employment was given to him. Thus the employers has violated the provison of Section 25 - H of the I. D. Act, 1947. Sri Rama Prasad has accordingly prayed for taking him back in the service with back wages and further direction to the opposite party to provide temporary status and further to consider for regularisation in the cstablishment and pay him bonus .
Opposite party has filed wiritten statement denying the entire claim of the worker, Sri Rama Prasad and it is submitted that the worker was never appointed in any capacity in the department of opposite party therefore , there arises no question of alleged ternination of his services w.e.f. 31-7-2001 . Opposite party has also specifically denied that Sri Rama Prasad was ever appointed in any capacity in the year August 1998 or subsequently, thus , there arises no question of having completed 240 days service or his alleged termination. It is also submitted that opposite party has service rules and recruitment rules and all appointments are made strictly in accordance with those Rules . The so called worker Sri Rama Prasad is put to strict proof to submit his appointment letter , details of payments and other relevant documents . In so far as engagement of workman ondaily wages is concerned, it is submitted that there was a complete ban on engagement of fresh casual labourers / dailywagers in the department w.e.f. 12-6-1988 . Referring to annexure 2 ofthe claim statement filed by Sri Rama Prasad the opposite party has submitted that the same is false and fictitious document and appears to have been issued under extraneous considerations to provide illegal benefits to the worker by the then SDE without having any authority to engage any casual labour . It is also submitted that those labourers who have earlier working on muster roll and were covered under grant of temporary and regularization scheme have been granted temporary status but so far as worker's case is concerned it is stated that he was never engaged in department in any capacity. It is further submitted that each case has got its own merit and cannot be equated from each other, therefore, the case of Sri Anurag Srivastava as cited in the body of paragraph under reply has no bearing in the eyes of law in the present case . Since Sri Rama Prasad was never engaged and has never worked with the opposite party and as such his case is not similar to those casual labourers who were duly appointed on dailywages . It is also submitted that after creation ofBharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , w.e.f. Oct. , 2000 the opposite party department has acquired the status of an autonomous body and has its seperate legal entity . It is also submitted that there is no violation of Sections , 25 F, G and H of the I. D. Act. Opposite party has also submitted that the entire case ofSri Rama Prasad is based on fictitious and misconceived footings and wholly devoid of merit, therefore the Tribunal may reject the claim.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
The worker has filed application wherin he has reiterated his statement contained in the statement ofclaim.
Worker examined himself on 27-4-06 and 9-6-06 was fixed for cross examination of the said worker . But the worker did not turned up, another date was fixed as 6-7-06 for cross examination of the worker . Worker and his representative remained absent on 6-7-06 as well therefore. the case was ordered to proceed ex -party against the worker and 7-9-06 was fixed for evidence of the opposite party. Worker remained absent on 7-9-06 as well the opposite party, was therefore, directed to file his evidence in the form of affidavit and accordingly the representative ofthe opposite party filed the affidavit of Sri Ram Charan , Div. Engineer (HQ) of the office of Telecom District Manager, Bahraich. Following documents have been filed by the Sri Ram Charan along with his affidavit .
1. Photo copy of recovery order of Accounts Officer Telecom District Manager , Bahraich of Mr. D. Prasad, SDE, MRA . dt. 27-12-2000.
2. Photo copy of recovery of Mr. D. Prasad, SDE by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich . dt . 27-12-2001 .
3. Photo copy of recovery order from Sri D. Prasad, SDE by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich . dt. 27-12-2001.
4. Photo copy of recovery order from Mr. D. Prasad, SDE by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich . dt. 27-12-2001 .
5. Photo copy of recovery order from Sri D. Prasad , SDE by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich. dt . 27-12 .
6. Photo copy of recovery order from Mr. D. Prasad, SDE by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich. dt. 27-12 .
7. Photo copy of recovery order from Mr. D. Prasad, SDE by Accounts Officer (Cash) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich . dt . 31-3-2002.
8. Photo copy of recovery order from Mr. D. Prasad, SDE by Accounts Officer (Cash) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich . dt. 31-3-2002 .
9. Photo copy of recovery order against I. B. No. 5 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich . dt. 31-3-2002 .
10. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 6 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich . dt. 31-3-2002.
11. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 7 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich .dt. 31-3-02 .
12. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 8 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich .dt . 31-3-02 .
10857
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
13. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 9 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich. dt. 31-3-02 .
14. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 10 by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich . dt. 31-3-02 .
15. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 11 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich.dt. 31-3-02 .
16. Photo copy of recovery order from 1. B. No. 13 by Accounts Officer (C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich. dt. 31-3-02 .
17. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 15 by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich. dt. 31-3-02 .
18. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich. dt. 31-3-02 .
19. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 19 by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager, Bahraich.dt. 31-3-02.
20. Photo copy of recovery order from I. B. No. 4 by Accounts Officer ( C) Telecom District Manager , Bahraich, dt. 31-3-02 .
Heard learned representative of the opposite party and perused the evidence on record.
Learned representative of the opposite party has argued that in para 4.2 of the claim statement Sri Rama Prasad has stated that he has joined his services as daily wager casual labour in August, 1998 and in the same claim statement at para 4.3 it is stated that he has been engaged acasual labour since August, 1997. The representative of the opposite party has also drawn my attention on paper No. 5/15 filed by the Sri Rama Prasad shows that he was engaged on 1-6-2000 and he was engaged after 1998 thus it is clear that the entire story is concocted and false and the documents have been prepared in a view to support the workerbut thattoo is of such a nature which prove that the statement of the worker in the claim statement is self contradictory in nature as the worker sometime says that hewas engaged in 1997, sometime he comes out and say that he was engaged in 1998 and accordingly to his doumentary statement and he comes out to say that he was engaged on 1-6-2000 .
SriRam Charan, Div . Engineer, Telecom has stated in his affidavit that in 1998 that there was neither any vacancy nor was ever notified either in the news papers , Employment Exchange or notice board. Therefore there arises no any question of engagement of worker Sri Rama Prasad as claimed by him. It is stated in the affidavit that department have sufficient staff of different categories of 10858
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
recovery of disallowed amount from them . The representative of the opposite party has stated that department has filed all those recovery documents as annexure SA - I to SA-20 .
employees already available in the regular establishment who are discharging their duties efficiently and no extra work or extra post are vacant in the department in Bahraich therefore there arises no question of his engagement as daily wager or casual labour .
The representative of the opposite party has stated that worker has failed to prove his case that he was ever engaged as daily worker by the opposite party as daily wager or any capacity, therefore, there is no question or his termination on 31-7-01 as mentioned in the reference order.
Sri Ram Charan categorically denied the appointment of Sri Rama Prasad as daily wager/ casual labour in 1998 as claimed by him . It is also submitted that no order has been passed for appointment/engagement of Sri Rama Prasad by the competent authority of the erswhile of department of Telecom of the Ministry of Telecommunications .
The representative of the opposite party has argued that since the worker has not been able to prove that he was engaged, he was terminated on 31-7-01 and that he wascompleted240 days work before the date of termination therefore the provision of Section 25G, H and F are not attracted. There is no engagement/ appointment and as such no retrenchment .
On considering the entire facts on record I come to the conclusion that worker has fail to prove that he was engaged as daily wager and was terminated subsequently on 31-7-01 . The issue is according by answered and the worker is not entitled to any relief.
Lucknow,
SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
27-11-2006
Sri Ram Charan has proved by affidavit that there was complete ban on the engagement of fresh daily wagers/ casual labours in the department w.e.f. 12-6-88 , therefore, there arises no question of engagement of Sri Rama Prasad as daily wager / casual labour as claimed by him . Sri Ram Charan has also denied that relationship of employer and cmployee between the opposite party and the Sri Rama Prasad. It is further stated by Sri Ram Charan that worker has never been engaged in any capacity in the department , on the other hand worker had never worked even for a single day in the department what to say of more than 240 days , therefore, the worker is not entiled to any relief. It is also proved by Sri Rain Charan that SDE was not competent to engaged any daily wager /casual labour unless specifically approved by the competent authority .
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5040.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स विनशन्स सिटिवीडोर्स कोन्ट्रक्टरस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-31011/13/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]
राजिन्द्र कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी Although the statement of Sri Ram Prasad who has not produced himself for cross examination can not be rcad in evidence but in the event of the said statement that hc was given experience certificate by SDE Sri Dukhenti Prasad, the representative of the opposite party has argued that the said SDE was not competent to engage a daily wager or issue certificate and in case he has prepared some fabricated document showing engagement of some labours to give some undue benefit to them and his kith and kin and also showing engagement of applicant and other persons as having worked as daily wagers/casual labours . The department states that the same are fabricated and manufactured documents and emphatically denied the engagement of applicant and other persons .
NewDelhi , the 5th December , 2006
S.O. 5040. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of M/ s . Vinsons , Stevedores , Contractors , clearing and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
Sri Ram Charan , Div . Engineer, has stated in his affidavit that department Imprest Books (B ) does not contains names of labours etc. while claiming reimbursment on his count except expenditure , if any , incurred on this count . It is further stated that SDE, Mihinpurwa tried to get the expenditure reimbursed through IB which was found to be irregular false and fabricated . Sri Ram Charan has further stated that IB submitted by Sub Divisional Engineers , Mihinpurwa showing ficititious payment to labours were under strict scrutiny and audit by the Accounts Office of the opposite party and found that the same to be fabricated and fictititous and being falsely prepared to earn undue money from the department by irregular means , notices were issued to said SDEs for
[No. L- 31011 / 13/2003- IR (B - II )] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 MUMBAI
PRESENT:
A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer
REFERENCE No. CGIT- 2/63OF 2003 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/ S . VINSONS, STEVEDORES, CONTRACTORS , CLEARINGAND FORWARDINGAGENTSAND SHIPPING AGENTS
M/ s . Vinsons , Stevedores , Contractors, Clearing and Forwarding Agents and Shipping Agents , 407 , EMCA House 289, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort Mumbai -400001 .
V/s. THEIR WORKMEN
The President
Transport and Dock Workers Union P.D'mello Bhawan
P.D'mello Road Carnac Bunder Mumbai -400038 .
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Ashish Ovalekar FOR THE EMPLOYER :
Advocate .
Mr. J.H. Sawant
FOR THE WORKMEN :
Advocate .
Mumbai, dated 30th October, 2006
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L -31011/ 13/2003 - IR (B - II ) dated 3-10-2003 in cxercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Vinsons Stevedores , Contrators Clearing and Forwarding Agents , Mumbai in orally terminating the services of 19 workers (List enclosed) is justified ? Ifnot, what relief these 19 workmen are entitled to?" List of workmen
1. Shri M.P.Bhandary
2. Ms. D. F. Naryani
3. Shri Mahesh P. Lulla
4. Shri Sanjay N. Kute
3916GI /06-21
10859
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
5. Shri Rajan N. Kute
6. Shri Naresh V. Padwal
7. Shri Ramesh K. Patil
8. Shri Ramesh M. Ramrakhiani
9. Shri Dipak Shamrao Thorat
10. Shri Suresh K. Sawant
11. Shri Sheb Ahmad .
12. Shri Mohammad Ajmal
13. Shri Prashant M. Golvankar
14. Shri Dilip R. Kadam
15. Shri M.P.Tari
16. Shri Nana Baban Shinde
17. Shri Krishna Laxman Wakkar
18. Shri Vinayak S. Pandit
19. Shri Jagpal Singh .
2. To support the subject mater referred in the reference, second party filed Claim Statement at Ex - 6 stating that, action taken by the first party in terminating 19 employees involved in the reference is illegal and unjustified. Said is disputed by first party by filing Written Statementat Ex- 11 . Issues framed at Ex- 15 and it was posted for recordingEvidence.
3. Meanwhileboth parties prayed to take matter in Lok Adalat and filed purshis at Ex - 17 to dispose it of accordingly.
ORDER
In view of Ex- 17, reference isdisposed in Lok Adalat .
30-10-2006
A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer LOK ADALAT DATED 30-10-2006 REFERENCE CGIT -2/63 of2003
PRESENT
Shri Ashish Ovelekar , Advocate for Mariagement Shri J.H. Sawant, Advocate for Union
The parties agreed to settle the dispute in terms of consent terms dated 20-10-2006 (Ex - 17) . Posted for Award.
Sd/- J.H. Sawant
Sd/- Nandini Menon Sd/-
Sd/- (Ashish Ovelekar)
Advocate for the Company Suresh Babu Panel Member Sd/-
Sd/- A.M. Koyande
M.B.Anchan Advocate 10860
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT No. 2 at MUMBAI .
REFERENCE No. CGIT-2/63/2003 M/S . Vinsons , Stevedores , Contractors , Clearing And Forwarding Agents .
1stParty.
Versus
Their Workmen Represented By Transport and Dock Workers Union . ... 2ndParty.
CONSENT TERMS
The Parties have now agreed to settle the Dispute alongwith other two cases being Application No. LC . 2/80/ 2002 and Reference No. CGIT 2-12-2003 for a Total amount of Rs . 19,00,000 ( Rupees Ninteen Lakhs only) upon the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter appearing .
1. The 1st Party Company has permanently closed down its stevedoring business with effect from 1-11-2002 and the parties agree to this position.
2. The 1st Party Company had paid to the cmployees as mentioned in the Schedule hereunder , all the legal dues , including one months Notice pay , Gratuity , Closure Compensation, Leave encashment , and the cmployces have received the same , alongwith their P.F. Dues , from the PF Commissioner's Office .
3. The 2nd Party Union agrees that the aforementioned amount is to be distributed proportionately to the 17 individual employees as has been agreed.
4. The 2nd Party Union agrees on the individual cmployees receiving the agreed amount shall make application to the Tribunal shall , unconditionally withdraw the same as being scttled between the workmen involved and the 1stl'arty Company .
4. The 2nd Party agrees that on the signing of this settlement deed , all Claims and disputes pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 against the 1st Party Company shall stand fmally settled.
5. The 2nd Party has accepted the agreed amount in full and final settlement of the claims and disputes for any arrears , monetary or otherwise , including the claims and disputes raised in all the 3 cases namely, Reference No. CGIT -2/63 / 2003 , Reference No. CGIT 2/12/ 2003 and Application No. LC . 2/80/2002.
6. The 2nd Party agrees that they shall not raise any further grievance or claim or dispute and all disputes concerning the employment of the employees whom they are representing ,
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) ] against the 1st Party Company , and all claims and Disputes , past or future shall stand finally settled.
7. It is agreed that that all the employees concerned shall sign individual and separate receipts of settlement of all the Disputes and shall furnish an individual and separate undertaking that the employees shall not raise any further grievance or claim or dispute and all disputes concerning them and the 1st Party Company shall stand settled.
The Parties, therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to kindly dispose of the Reference in view of the aforesaid consent terms , and obliged.
Dated this 20th day of October 2006.
Sd/-
M/S. Transport And Dock Workers Union
M/S . Vinsons , Stevedores , Contractors, Clearing , Shipping Agents
1. Mr. Mohan P. Bhandari
Sd/- 2. Ms. D. F. Narayani
3. Mr. Mahesh P. Lulla
4. Mr. Snajay N. Kute
5. Mr. Rajan N. Kute
6. Mr. Naresh V. Padwal
7. Mr. Ramesh K. Patil
8. Mr. Ramesh M. Ramrakhaini
9. Mr. Deepak S.Thorat
10. Mr. Suresh K. Sawant
11. Mr. Saheb Ahmed
12. Mr. Mohammad Ajmal
13. Mr. Prashant M. Golvankar
14. Mr. Dilip R. Kadam
15. Mr. Nana B. Shinde
16. Mr. Vinayak S. Pandit
17. Mr. Jagpal Singh Sd/-
Advocate for the Applicants Advocate for the Respondents (1st Party)
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, No. 2 at MUMBAI .
Reference No. CGIT - 2/63/2003
M/S. Vinsons , Stevedores , Contractors , Clearing And Forwarding Agents .
...
1st Party.
Versus
Their Workmen Represented By
Transport and Dock Workers Union .
2nd Party [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Alongwith
Reference No. CGIT 2/12/2003
M/s . Vinsons .
1stParty Versus
Their Workmen Represented By Transport and Dock Workers Union .
2ndParty
Alongwith
Application No. LC. 2/80/2002
Shri M. P. Bhandari & Ors .
Applicants Versus
M/s . Vinsons .
Respondents
Signature
Amount Received
Sr. Name ofthe No.Employee
Sd/-
Rs . 151722.08
1. Mr. Mohan P. Bhandari
Rs . 125778.95
2. Ms. D. F. Narayani
Rs . 125374.70
3. Mr. Mahesh P. Lulla
Rs . 122857.96
4. Mr. Snajay N. Kute
Rs . 122742.34
5. Mr. Rajan N. Kute
Rs. 118669.95
6. Mr. Naresh V. Padwal
Rs . 124399.54
7. Mr. Ramesh K. Patil
Rs . 125704.39
8. Mr. Ramesh M. Ramrakhaini
Rs . 123483.06
9. Mr. Deepak S. Thorat
Rs . 108333.83
10. Mr. Suresh K.Sawant
Rs. 105310.90
11. Mr. Saheb Ahmed
Rs.89273.87
12. Mr. Mohamad Ajmal
Rs.79686.02
13. Mr. Prashant M. Golvankar
Rs . 117273.53
14. Mr. Dilip R. Kadam
Rs . 80030.41
15. Mr. Nana B. Shinde
Rs . 89697.72
16. Mr. Vinayak S. Pandit
Rs.89660.75
17. Mr. Jagpal Singh
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5041.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दैना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोलकत्ता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/169/95- आई: आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006 S.O. 5041. In pursuanceuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/1996 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-
10861
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, *which was received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
[No. L- 12012/169/95- IR (B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKΑΤΑ Reference No. 31 of 1996
PARTIES:
Employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank AND Theirworkmen .
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice C.P. MISHRA, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCE :
: Mr. R. N. Majumder, Advocate
Onbehalf of the Management
Onbehalf of the Workmen
: Mr. A. C. Chattopadhyay, Advocate
State: West Bengal
Industry: Banking Date: 21st, November, 2006. :
AWARD
By Order No. L- 12012/169/95- IR (B - II ) dated 30-09-1996 and corrigencum of even number dated 30-12-1998 the Central Government in exercise ofits powers under Section 10(1 )(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
" 1. Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank to revert Sh. Dhananjay Sardar from full - time sweeper to part - time sweepers justified ? If not, to whatReljef the workman is entitled to ?
2. Whether his claim for regularisation of service as full-time subordinate staff is just and legal ? If so , whatrelief is he entitled to ? "
2. The case of the workman has been espoused by Dena Bank Employee's Association (hereinafter to be referred as the union) . The case of the union as it appears in its written statement, in brief , is that Shri Dhananjay Sardar the concerned workman is a permanent part -time sweeper of Dena Bank (hereinafter to be referred as the Bank) and posted to.
Krishna nagar Branch under the Calcutta Region since his joining on 20th December, 1982. He was required to work on part-time basis on 1 /3rd of basic pay of the subordinate staff from that date and thereafter on half of basic pay of subordinate staff along with other allowances witheffect from 1st January , 1987. The workman was often required by the management to work full time as a Peon in addition to his normal duty as Sweeper in the absence of 10862
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC.3 ( ii)]
staff. The Bank admitted that the concerned workman was firstappointed as part - time sweeper on 1 /3rd scale ofwages at the concerned branch and thereafter he was allowed to work on 1/2 scale of wages . It is stated that the case of the concerned would also be considered for placement as full- time subordinate staff and when vacancy would arise in thebranches in the state of West Bengal under Calcutta Region provided he makes an application in the matter . According to the Bank the dispute raised by the union interalia in effect seeking regularisation of the concerned workman as full - time subordinate staff is legally not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed in limini . It is further case of the Bank that the concerned workman never applied for any vacancy and no clear vacancy has arisen in the concerned branch . The Bank admitted that the concerned workman on and from June , 1992 worked as full- time subordinate staff, but according to the Bank he was doing so unauthorisedly because he was not appointed as such by the Bank. It is the futher case of the Bank that due to the illegal act or omission on the part of the Branch Manager of the concerned branch the workman was compensated for his voluntary and unauthorised discharge ofduties as full - time subordinate staff and he was allowed thedifference of wages . The Bank has categorically denied that it was within the knowledge of the Regional Manager of the Calcutta Region and Head Office of the Bank that the concerned workman was carrying out the duties of a full- time subordinate staff and that he was reverted back to the post of part- time sweeper, because he was always engaged as part - time Sweeper and therefore reverting him back to the said post does not arise . It is stated by the Bank that if the prayers made on behalf of the workman is allowed, it would amount to appointment of the concerned workman through back door and it would cause grave prejudiced not only to the Bank but also to the other part- timers engaged by the Bank. It is therefore prayed that the reference be rejected .
4. In the rejoinder the union denied and disputed the statements of the Bank as stated in its written statement . The union also reiterated the statements as already mentioned in its written statement .
other full -time sub - staffs of that branch and even in their presence also . He was however paid due wages for such additional work since December , 1990 the workman was paid extra proportionate remuneration consisting of basic pay and other allowances and deductions of Provident Fund and Professional Tax were effected from the said remuneration , From the month of December , 1990 the workınan was allowed to work from 8 A. M. to 5 P. M. on signing the attendance register . He was required to work full - time on all working days since June , 1992 and he was allowed certain benefits taking into account his gross salary so enhanced due to his full time engagement. According to the union deployment of the concerned workman as full - time subordinate staff was within the knowledge of the controlling office , Calcutta Regional Office and the Head Office of the Bank . But the Bank instead of regularising/ absorbing the concerned workman , suddenly decided to revert him to the post of part- time Sweeper . Thereafter the union raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . The union referred to a letter of the Branch Manager of Krishnanagar Branch addressed to the Assistant General Manager of the Bank wherein the workman is stated to have performed full time duty upto 24th December, 1994 uninterruptedly for which salary of full- time employee was allowed to him . Thereafter the Conciliation Officer held conciliation proceedings , which ultimately ended in failure and consequently the present reference has been made by the Central Govt . for adjudication . The union has referred various bipartite settlements arrived at between the Indian Banks Association and various faderations of unions at industry level which govern the service conditions ofthe Bank camployees including the present Bank and the last such settlement was signed on 14th February , 1995 . According to the union such action of the Bank is totally illegal , arbitary , malafide , unjust , unreasonable , motivated , without any basis and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore , it is prayed that the action of the Bank in reverting the concerned workman to the post of part-time Sweeper from the post of full - time Sweeper be held to be illegal and unjustified and the workman be directed to be posted as full - time subordinate staff and he be granted all the service benefits of full - time subordinate staff.
3. The Bank in its written statement denied the claim of the union and stated that the sanctioned strength of subordinate staff at the Krishnanagar Branch of the Bank is 1 Watchman, 2 full - time subordinate staff and Ipart - time subordinate staff on 1/2 scale wage and all the posts are filled up . It is the case of the Bank that whenever a new vacancy of full - time subordinate staff is identified in a branch and the said vacancy is approved by the Head Office, the vacancy is notified and applications are invited from willing eligible part- time subordinate staff. The vacancy is filled up by appointing part - time subordinte staff who is the senior most amongst the applicants . In the present case the senior most part - time subordinate is the only subordinate staff amongst the applicants , he is appointed for filling up the vacancy of full - time subordiante
5. Two documents have been exhibited on behalf of the workman . Ext . W- 1 is the letter of the concerned workman to the Branch Manager of the concerned branch of the Bank regarding discontinuance of his permanent full -time subordinate service and Ext . W- 2 is the letter of the Manager of the concerned branch to the Assistant GeneralManager of the Bank regarding part- time sweeper . Of the 5 documents exhibited by the Bank , Ext. M - 1 is the circularoftheBank dated 06-02-1982 regarding appointment in subordinate cadre , Ext . M- 2 is another circular of the Bank dated 17-11-1988 regarding decentralisation of authority for approval of panels for subordinate cadre including watch & ward staff, Ext. M - 3 is another circular dated 15-12-1989 regarding engagement of part- time subordinate on leave vacancy , Ext . M - 4 is another circular prescribing the rates of area - wise wages/salary for the part- भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
time Sweeper and Ext. M-5 is the circular of the Bank dated 18-12-1996 enclosing therewith the memorandum of settlement dated 05-12-1996 arrived at between the Bank and the All India Dena Bank Employees Co- ordination Committee regarding norms for posting of part - time subordinate staff as full time subordinate staff.
6. WW- 1 the concerned workman is the sole witness on behalf of the workman. He has stated in his deposition that he is working as part -time Sweeper in the Bank since 20th December , 1982 at Krishnanager Branch . His duty hours were from 8 A. M. to 10 A. M. and his basic paywas Rs . 87 and his total emoluments was Rs . 204 p.m. Upto 1989 he was exclusively engaged for sweeping work, but from 1990 he was to perform the duty of Peon in addition to his duty as Sweeper and he had to work from 10 A. M. to 5 P. M. Thus his total working hours were from 8 A. M. to 5 P. M. He used to perform duties of Peon continuously and accordingly he was allowed to sign attendance register upto 23-12-1994. He was, however, paid for such cxtra work in the salary sheet, but he was allowed to enjoy all the privileges those are enjoyed by the employees of the said post. After 1994 he was reverted back to his original post of Sweeper . His prayer is that he may be appointed as full- time Peon in the Bank . In cross- cxamination he stated that no appointment letter was issued to him in, 1990 or at any point of time appointing him as a Peon and he was working as a Peon on the verbal instruction of the Branch Manager . From the date of his appointment he is still working as a part - time Sweeper and he has no grievance so far as that work is concerned . He further stated that he was never appointed as a full- time Sweeper by the Bank . He, however , denied that he has no right to claim any appointment as a full -time Peon. He has been further examined in chief on recall to say that he applied to the management for regularisation by letter dated 21-2-1995 marked Ext. W- 1 .
7. On behalf of the Bank two witnesses have been cxamined . MW-1 , Alakesh Chakraborty is an officer Scale- 1 and posted at Brabroune Road, Branch of the Bank at the time of his deposition. During the period from June , 1989 toOctober, 1992 he was posted at Krishnanagar Branch of the Bank as an Accountant . He knew the concerned workman who during that period was employed as part- time Sweeper . This witness has stated that at that time no regular vacancy was notified for absorption of the part- time Sweeper According to him the name of the concerned workman was apperaing in the Muster Roll as a part -time Sweeper and he never worked in the Bank as a full-time Sweeper. In cross - examination the witness has stated that at the relevant time one Mr. S. M. Gandhi was the incharge ofthe concerned branch who was responsible for engaging and allotting work. At the relevant time there ware three officers four clerks and four subordinate staff including part - time Sweeper at the concerned branch. He had no idea about what happened after October, 1992 there . He has stated that there was no practice of salary bills of the staff being submittedto the Regional Office for approval. He
10863 admitted that the concerned workman had worked as full- time Peon and he was paid for the same, but according to him it was on casual basis . He , however, could not remember whether the concerned workman had signed attendance register from 1990 to 1994 as permanent staff.
MW- 2 , Samir Kumar Ghosh is the Senior Manager , Personnel & Administration of the Bank at the Regional Office at Calcutta. Regarding appointment of part-time Sweeper this witness has stated that first of all the vacancy is to be identified by the Head Office at Mumbai and after that local office issues requisition to the Employment Exchange and it is aslo notified in the local newspaper and after receiving the names of the candidates interview is taken and thereafter selection is made . He categorically stated that this dispute arose out of an unauthorised act of the Branch Manager of the Krishnanagar Branch of the Bankwho appointed the concerned workman on full -time basis though he was working on half-time basis . He further stated when the matter came to the notice of the Regional Office, Calcutta insturction was issued to the concerned branch to stop that practice immediately and action was also initiated against the said Branch manager . He has stated that the sanctioned strength of the subordinate staff at concerned branch at the relevant time was one Armed Guard, two Peons and one half wage scale Sweeper . He further stated that appointment letter is issued by the Regional Authority with the approval of the head Office and the Branch Manager had no power to make any such appointment. In his cross-examination the witness has stated that he has deposed on the basis of relevant papers and not on his personal knowledge . He , however , admitted that the concerned workman had worked full wage basis for approximately two years continuously. According to him the rules regarding appointment etc. are on the basis ofthe settlements and circulars and the provisions are laid down in the First Bipartite Settlement in this regard . He denied that the Manager concerned had made the appointment according to requirement and necessity of the branch in consultation with the authority concerned. he has also stated that the concered workman was paid the full-timewages during the period for which he was engaged as such .
8. Besides the oral and documentary evidence, learned Counsels for the parties also placed Certain case laws. Learned Counsel for the workmen has referred to the case of Sudarshan Das v . United Bank of India & Ors . (1992ICLR 63) and submitted that in that case the workman, whohad rendered service of 257 days without any break and onhis demand for regularisation of service the direction was given for regularisation of service by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, He has also referred to the case ofthe Navagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & Anr . V. Narayan Rath andAnr. (AIR 1971 SC; 112 ) wherein it has been held by theApex Court that the incumbent who was allowed to work for 13 years and no action taken in the mean time by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies , it was not open to himto set aside the appointment of the incumbent . Relying 10864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
on another decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Piyara Singh ( AIR 1992 SC2130) in this regard .
9. The issue involved for determination in this case is two fold. Firstly, whether the action of the management ofDena Bank to revert the concerned workman from full- time Sweeper to part- time Sweeper is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? Secondly , whether his claim for regularisation in service as full - time subordinate staff is justified and legal ? If so, towhat relief he is entitled to ?
upon the aforesaid case law learned Counsel for the workman has argued that the Concerned workman who has rendered full time service for more than 4 years uninterruptedly without any break under the instruction of the Branch Manager of the concerned Branch as well as with the full knowledge of the higher authorities of the Bank and so he could not be removed from the said post on the alleged plea of irregular appointment for which the concerned workman cannot be said to be at fault and he should be regularised to the post full-time Peon . He has also referred the cases of Alok Behari Bhowmick v . Union of India 1993 (67 ) F.L.R.937 ] , Pushpalata Saxena v . Chancellor , Agra University & Ors . [ 1997 IIILLJ ( Supp . )4] . ZIlla Grandhalaya Samstha Employees Association v . Secretary education Dept. , Govt. of Andhra Pradesh ( 1988 Lab I.C. 3325 ) and State of West Bengal & Ors . V. Nani Gopal Jana & Ors . ( 1998 II LLJ 11 16).
10. So far as the first relief claimed by the workman challenging the action of the management reverting him full-time Sweeper to part - time Sweeper is concerned, it is evidentthat as per his own case as mentioned in the written statement filed on his behalf as well as his statement given on oath there is no such fact stated by him . Rather , it has been mentioned in so many words in his examination in cheifthathis only prayer to the Tribunal is that he may be appointed as full-time Peon in the Bank . In his cross- examination he has further stated that he was never appointed as full- time Sweeper by the Bank at any point of time andhe has no grievance so far as the part - time work of Sweeper is concerned. He has further stated that from 1982 till the present he has been continuously working in the Bank as a part- time Sweeper. His main prayer is for regularisation as it was mentioned by him in his letter dated 21-02-1995, Ext. W- 1 . This request is based mainly on the ground that he has been serving in the Bank for such a long time and particularly during the period from 1990 to 1994 when he had to work as full - time Peon and as such had signed attendance register and also got his salary on monthly basis . Thus according to him he had worked full- time during the period and he had been paid his salary and as such he prays for regularisation. In this connection the Bank both in the written statement as well as in the statment ofthe witnesses examined on its behalf viz . MW- 1 , Alakesh Chakraborty has stated that no regular vacancy was notified for absorption of the part-time Sweeper into full -time Sweeper. The concerned workman has never worked in the Bank as full - time Sweeper . The workman himself in the cross-examination has admitted that no appointment letter was issued in his favour in 1990 or at any point time for his appointment as a Peon . The aforesaid evidence led by the parties, particularly the admission of the workman himself clearly goes to show that the management had not at any point of time appointed the concerned workman as full time Sweeper. So there is no question of he being reverted back tothe post of part- time Sweeper from the post offull- time Sweeper as the concerned workman had never been promotedto the post of full - time Sweeper and no grievance at such to challenge the alleged reversion from the post of full -time Sweeper to part - time Sweeper as it is so claimed byhim for the purpose .
Learned Councel for the management, however , challenged the aforesaid plea raised on behalf of the workmanby relying upon the case law laid down in State ofU.P. & Ors . V. Ajay Kumar , reported in ( 1997 ) 4 S.C.C. 88 that there must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post . Daily - wage appointment will abviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists . Under these circumstances , the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in direction the appellant to regularise the service of the respondent, who was working as Nursing orderly of daily wages to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Ramchander & Ors . V. Additional District Magistrate & Ors . , reported in 1998 II LLJ 1088 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the employees who were Appellants did not fulfikthe basic requirements ofRule 4( i ) namely that they should be continuing in service as ad hoc employees in order to be eligible for regularisation . He also relied upon another decision of the Apex Court inMadhyamik Siksha Parisad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra ( AIR 1994 SC 1638 ) where it has been held that "We are unable to uphold the order of the High Court . There were no sanctioned post in existence to which they could be said to have been appointed. The assignment was an ad hoc one which anticipatedly spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage for them the status of workmen on the analogy of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 supporting the incidents of completion of 240 days ' work . The legal consequences that flow from work for that duration under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are entirely different from what, by way of implication , is attributed to the present situation by way of analogy. The completion of240 days' work does not, under that law import the right to regularisation . It merely imposes certain obligation on the employer at the time of termination of the service. It is no appropriate to import and apply that analogy, in an extended or enlarged from here . " He has also placed reliance
11. So far as the second relief claimed by the workman concerned for regularisation of his service as full-time subordinate staff, it is an admitted fact that the workman . had been appointed only as a part - time Sweeper in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Bank in the year 1982. He has no grievance so far as this post is concerned . It is also admitted that the claim for his regularisation as per rules and schemes prepared by the Bank is governed as per terms of settlement arrived at between the employer and the representative of the workmen videoffice circular dated 18-12-1996, Ext.M-5, which interalia provide the terms and conditions for promotion or regularisation as the case may be as under :--
" 1. As and when a vacancy in full time cadre is identified /sanctioned by the Head Office in a branch office, the vacancy will be notified and applications will invited from the eligible part - time employers drawing scale wages in the region/state whichever is smaller and the vacancy will be filled upby posting the senior most applicant, taking the seniority on the basis of date of joining in the services of the bank irrespective of scale wages he/she will be drawing at the time of filling up the vacancy .
4. As and when vacancy arises , for 12 or 4 scale wage in centre having two or more branches and approvedby Head Office, applications will be invited from the cligible part -time employee working in that centre and the vacancy will be filled up by posting the senior- most eligible part . - time employces amongst . the applicants drawing scale wage of 1/3 or ½ as the case may be as per the date of joining . If there is only one branch in a centre when the vacancy has arisen and approved the same will be filled up from the approved panel , if there is no request trarnsferee from part - time employee working in other centre is pending .
5. To be cligible for conversion into full- time subordinate , the part - time employee should be conformingto the norms of recruitment in respect of age, educational qualification , etc. at the time of initial cntry into part-time employment . For part time cmployces drawing scale - wages of recruited prior to 1977, their cligibilty regarding qualification, age may be the one applicable to SC/ST candidates stipulated for recruitment after 1977 .
7. If more than one part - time employes have the saime seniority , selection will be on the basis of date of birth . The selected candidate ( s) will be posted anywhere in the region/ state whichever is smaller . " 12. In view of the above mentioned terms and conditions is vide Exi . M-5 it is evident that as and when vacancy in full-time subordinate cadre is identified/ sanctioned by the Head Office in a branch/office , the vacancy will be notified from the eligible part-time employce . It further provides that seniormost eligible part- tine employees as per date of joining will be entitled tobe considered for such appointment and the selected candidate willbe posted anywhere in the region/ state as the case may be. In this connection as stated by MW- 1 , Alakesh Chakraborty the witness examined on behalf of the management is that at that time no regular vacancy was
10865
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
notified for absorption of a part -time Sweeper and also that there was no such sancitoned post available at Krishnanagar Branch of the Bank at the relevant time i.e. , 1992 to 1994 and so there was no question of the concerned workman being ever allowed to work as full - time subordinate staff. It is evident that for a regular vacancy there most have existed a vacant post in the Bank at the relevant time for being promoted as a full- time subordinate staff.
13.The claim for regularisation of a workman often lead to a great deal of controversy between the workmen and the management in number of cases and this has also led to number of litigations as well from time to time .On thebasis of long period of ad hoc service a workman claims forhis regularisation as it is being done by the workman in the present case and in some cases this relief to the workman is provided to them by the Court as well . However, there are conficting judicial opinion on this point of the Apex Court as well as noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary , State of Karataka & Ors . v . Umadevi & Ors . (2006 -II - LLJ - 722) . The matter had been referred to it on account of the confict decisions of three Judges Benches and the two Judges Benches viz. Aswani Kumar and Ors . V. State of Bihar , AIR 1997 SC 1628 : 1997(2) SCC 1 : 1997 II-LLJ - 856; State of Haryana & Ors . v. Piara Singh & Ors. , AIR 1992 SC2130 : 1992( 4) SCC 118 : 1993-11 -LLJ - 937 and Dharvad Distt . P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and Ors . v . State of Karnataka & Ors . AIR 1990 SC 883 : 1990( 2 ) SCC 396 on the one hand and State of Himachal Pradesh v . Suresh Kumar Verma & . Anr . , AIR 1996 SC 1565 : 1996 (7 ) SCC 562. State ofPunjab v . Surinder Kumar & Ors . , AIR 1992 SC1593 : 1992 ( 1 ) SCC 489 and B.N. Nagarajan & Or : s . v . State of Karnataka & Ors . , AIR 1979 SC 1676 : 1979 (4) SCC 507: 1979 - II -LLJ-209.
14. Having considered the legal and constitutional aspect of the matter for regularisation it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that only such appointment is to be made in terms of the procedure established in that behalf and that too by a regular process of appointment when there is a regular vacany in the post at a particular point of time otherwise not . The Hon'ble Court held:
"Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic , has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thercunder . Our Constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of aprocedure and established in that behalf equality ofopportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the Constitutional scheme . A sovereign Government, considered the economic situation in the country and the work to be gotdone, is not precluded from making temporary's appointments or engaging workers on daily wages . Going by a law newly enacted , The National Rural 10866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
EmploymentGuarantee Act, 2005, the objection is to give employment to atleast one member of a family for hundred days in an year on paying wages as fixed under the Act . But a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be restored to , when regular vacancies in posts , at a particular point of time , are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule."
15. In spite of the above constitutional scheme and the departinental rules providing a proper appointment procedure as per rules , irregular appointments and regularisation of contract daily- wagers are made and in some of the cases the department ignoring rules absorbed soinc of the entrants in service and sometimes it had been at the directions of the Court without following the regular procedure or even through back door. The Apex Court having noticed this anomaly and after having analysed the previous decisions given by it categorically stated that regular recruitment should always be insisted upon and only in contingency an ad - hoc appointment can be made for a permanent vacancy, but that too should be followed by a regular recruitment process . The Hon'ble Court in paragraphs 26 and 27 has made a clear observation to this effect in so many words as under:
"26. It is not necessary to notice all the decisions of this Court on this aspect . By and large what emerges is the regular recruitment should be insisted upon, only in a contingency an ad hoc appointment can be made in a permanent vacancy , but the same should soon be followed by a regular recruitment and that appointments to non - available posts should not be taken note of for regularisation . The cases directing regularisation have mainly proceeded on the basis that having permitted the employee to work for some period, he should be absorbed, without really laying down any law in that efect, after discussing the Constitutional schemes for public employment .
27. In Umarani . A v . Registrar , Co-operative Societies anxl Ors . 2004( 7 ) SCC 112 : 2004- III - LLJ - 780, a three- Judge: Bench made a survey of the authorities and held that when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and Statutory rules framed thereunder and by ignoring essential qualifications , the appointment would be illegal and cannot be regularised by the State. The State could not invoke its power under Articale 162 of the Constitution to regularise such appointments . This Court also held that regularisation is not and cannot be a mode or recruitment by any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder . Regularisation furthermore cannot give permanence to an employee whose services are ad hoc in nature . It was also held that
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] the fact that some persons had been working for a long time would not mean that they had acquired a right for regularisation. "
16. The Apex Court has categorically held above that no appointment should be made in contravention of the statutory rules and even held that the High Court has nojurisdiction to frame such scheme for regularisation . In paragbraph 29 of the said judgement, the 1 Hon'ble Court observed thus :
"29. It is not necessarry to multiply authorities on thisaspect. It is only necessary to refer to one or two of the recent decisions in this context . In State U.P. v. Niraj Awasthi & Ors . 2006(1 )SCC667: 2006 I-LLJ- 721, this Court after referring to a number of prior decisions held that there was no power in the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India tomake appointments and even if there was any such power . no appointment could be made in contravention of statutory rules . This Court also held that past alleged regularisation or appointment does not cannote entitlement to further regularisation appointment . It was further held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to frame a scheme by itself or direct the framing of a scheme for regularisation . This view wasreiterated in State of Karnataka v . KGSD Canteen Employees Welfare Association , 2006 - I - LLJ - 691 (SC)"
17. In view of the above decision given by the Hon'ble Apex Court by a Constitutional Bench of five Judges in Umadevi case (supra ) it clearly goes to lay down that adherence to the rules of equality in public employment is the basic feature of Constitution and unless the appomtment has been made in terms of relevant rules and after proper competition, the same would not confer any right on the appointed . It provides as such that the process of regularisation unless backed by rules , it does not give any such right to the workman for regularisation and earlier decisions given also do not help him to get a relief of regularisation unless it is backed by a scheme in this regard.
18. The facts of this case shows that the workman had been appointed as part - time Sweeper in the Bank since the year 1982 and he was not appointed ever as full -time subordinate staff as per his own statement given as WW- 1 in this connection . For some time he had been permitted to work as full time subordinate staff , i.e. , from 1990 to 1994, but as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the written statement of the Bank , he was asked to so unauthorisedly or it was due to illegal act or omission on the part of the Branch Manager of the concerned branch and also it was not within the knowledge of the Regional Manager of the Calcutta Region and Head Office of the Bank . The workman was engaged as a part - time Sweeper and for sometimes he had no doubt done a full - time job for which he had also been paid extra wages or salary as per salary sheet referred to a this connection . For regularisation or promotion the memorandum of settlement arrived at between the Bank 10867 भारत का राजपत्र ; दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Hon'ble Apex Court leave no room for doubt that the claimofthe workman concerned cannot be looked into for its necessary consideration as the oncerned workman had never been promoted or appointed as a full- time subordinate staff in the concrned branch for no such vacaney ever existed therein nor any such vacancy was ever notified so as to consider the claim of the workman for his regularisation as claimed by him in this regard. The matter is still open and it will be considered as and when any such vacancy occurs in future as it will be so notified and the claim of the workman will also be considered for the same as it has been categorically stated on behalf of the Bank in its paragraph 4 of the written statement and both the witnesses examined in this connection on behalf ofthe management viz . MW- 1 and MW - 2 have also stated this fact to be followed by the Bank for considering the claim for promotion/ regularisation of the workman as provided by the terms of the Circular dated 5-12-1996 . Ext . M- 5 in this regard . Issue No. 2 as such is decided accordingly.
19. In the result, the action of the management of DenaBank to revert Shri Dhananjay Sardar from full - time Sweeperto part- time Sweeper is held to be justified and his claim for regularisation of service as full- time subordinate staff cannot be held to be just and legal . The concerned workman, therfore , is not entitled to any relief in this case.
20. The reference is answered accordingly . Kolkata S. B. MISHRA , Presiding Officer Dated: the 21st November, 2006
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ 5042.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन ओवरसिस बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चंडीगढ़ नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -12012/ 141/ 1998 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006.
S.O. 5042. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Chandigarh No. I as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of the Chief Regional Manager , IOB Regional Office, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
[No. L- 12012/ 141 / 1998- IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer and the All India Dena Bank Employees ' Coordination Committee dated 05-12-1996 i.e. Ext. M -5 is a guiding scheme and circular issued in pursuance of it providing terms and conditions regulating mode of promotion which has tobe gone into before any such claim is available to a workman in this regard . As mentioned above, it provides that as and when a vacancy in full- time subordinate cadre is identified or sanctioned by the Head Office in a branch/office, the vacancy will be notified and application will be invited from the eligible part - time employees taking seniority on the basis of date of joining in the service . In paragraph 5 is also provided that senior- most eligible part - time employee amongst the applicants will be entitled to get this chance . There will be a relaxation for age and educational qualifcation of such candidates and so on. All these conditions are to be fulfiled before considering the claim of the workman for his promotion or regularisation whatsoever to the post of full - time subordinate staff . The witnesses, MW- 1 and MW - 2 both have stated that no such vacancy atpresent exists in the concerned branch nor it has been so notified so as to give any such chance to the workman tobe considered for regularisation as full - time subordinate Staff. As stated by them the sanctioned strength of the subordinate staff of the Krishnanagar Branch both at the relevant time in the year 1992-1994 and even at present is one Armed Guard, two Peons and one half wage scale Sweeper . In view of that it is found that this workman had never been appointed as full -time subordinate staff on regular basis after selection as per the aforesaid scheme and rules . Others , senior to him are also to be considered for any such claim of the workman and unless the vacancy is so notified and applications are invited in terms thereof as per rules, the claim of the concerned workman cannot be looked into and any such direction issued by the Tribunal to regularise the service of the concerned workman will obviously be illegal as it has been so held by the decision given in the case of Umadevi ( supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 of 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 wage 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 been clarified to say 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, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules, it is not open to the Court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees whose period of employment has come to an end or of ad hoc cmployees who by the very nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right. This clear asssertions by the
3916G1/06-22 10868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No 1.D.27 /99
Sh . Ashok Kumar C/ o Sh . Tek Chand Sharma, 25 Sant Nagar, Civil Lines . Ludhiana141001 .
.......Applicant
Versus
The Chief Regional Manager , Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office Civil Lines , Ludhiana - 141001
..Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the workman :
None
For the management: Sh Ramesh Chopra Passed on 11-10-2006
AWARD
Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 12012/141/98/ IR(B - II ) dated 27-01-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006 S.O. 5043. In pursuancersuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 284/ 1999, of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
[No. L- 12011/17/1999- IR (B - II ) ]
RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/R/284/99
PresidingOfficer: SHRI C. M. SINGH
The President,
Bank of IndiaEmployees Union, C/OBank of India, Zonal Office, JailRoad,Arera Hills ,
......Workmen/Union Bhopal (MP)
"Whether the action of the management of the Bank i.c. the Chief Regional Manager , Indian Overseas Bank, Fountain Chowk , Civil Lines . Ludhiana in awarding punishment of dismissal from service to Sh .Ashok Kumar, Messenger w.e.f. 20-4-95, is legal and justified ? If not. what relief the concerned workınan is entitled to and from what date ?" 2. None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice for several dates Learned counsel for the management Shri Chopra submitted that it appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference as he is not appearing to pursue with his case probably employed gainfully some where He further submitted that from the last 11 dates fixed for hearing neither workman put up appearance nor his AR appeared . therefore , the reference may be returned for want of prosecution .
3. In view of the above , as the workman is not appearing for the last 11 dates and probably gainfully cmployed , the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed . File be consigned to record.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का. आ 5043.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 284/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12011/17/1999- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]
राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी
Versus
The Zonal Manager ,
Bank of India, Zonal Office ,
......Management M.P.Zone , Bank of India Bhawan, Jail Road, Arera Hills , Bhopal (MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 20th day of November , 2006 1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 120 11 / 17 /99 - IR ( B - II ) dated 5-23-8-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudica- tionby this tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India in engaging casual labourers for years together but denying regularisation who completedmore than 240 days service in a calendar year is justified ? If not, what relief such casual labourers are entitled for? "
"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India in not converting the sweep- ers into Sepoy (Peon) who have completed 5 years ofregular service is justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled for ?"
"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India in not appointing sweepers onFloor-Areabasis is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for ?"
2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 13-9-99 and notices were issued to the par- ties to file their respective statements of claim. Notices were issued to the parties by Registered AD post and there- 10869 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपन्न : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
The President,
Syndicate Bank Employees
after under certificate of posting but no one put in appear- ance for the parties inspite of sufficient service of notice on them . Under the above circumstances , this tribunal was. leftwith no option but to close the reference for award.
Union , Kalyan Bhavan, 1st floor , 69,Armenian Street, Chennai -600001.
APPEARANCE :
Forthe employer : Mr. R. N. Shah, Advocate 3. It is clear from the above that the parties have no interest in the industrial disputes referred to this tribunal for adjudication . Therefore it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award in this case . Accordingly no dispute award without any order as to costs is passed.
Forthe employee : Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate
Date of reserving the Award : 8th August, 2006 4. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
Date ofpassing the Award : 4th October , 2006.
C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer
AWARD- II
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 12011/214/2000- IR (B - II) dated 27th Novem- ber,2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
का.आ. 5044.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of management ofM/s . Syndi- cate bank by dismissing Shri C.K. Diwalkar from the ser- vices of the Bank is justified and proper ? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
[सं. एल -12011 /214/2000- आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 5th December, 2006
S.O. 5044. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 116/2000) , of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
[No. L'12011 /214/2000- IR(B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, COURTNO.2, MUMBAL
Present : Shri A. A. Lad , Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO , CGIT- 2/116 OF 2000
Employers in relation to the managment of Syndicatebank
The Deputy General Manager ,
Syndicate Bank , Zonal Office ,
2.Workman Diwalkar was engaged as Attendant in the Bank in the year 1980 and that he was promoted as Clerk from 1985. In the year 1998 , he was posted at Worli (SouthMumbai ) of Syndicate Bank. By claim statement Exhibit 7 workman averred that on 18-9-1998 he was suspended pending chargesheet dated 3-12-1998 on the allegation that with dishonest intention he derived unlawful pecuniary benefits . It is alleged in the charge sheet that workman fraudulently credited an amount ofRs . 1,06,369 being realization proceeds of CDD 179/98 and 180/98 to Saving Bank Account No.185523 of Mr. Razak and misappropriated the amount by fraudulently obtaining signature of said Razak on withdrawal s'ip No.022641 on 24-3-1998 to withdraw Rs . 1,00,000 and by forging signature of said Razak on withdrawal slip No. 022712 on 26-3-1998 to withdraw Rs.6000 from, the SB Account No. 185523. It is pleadedthat workman denied the said allegation as he was not involved in all the transactions referred to above nor he destroyed the credit slips , nor forged the signature of Razak . He averred that he did not misappropriate any amount nor committed any misconduct, however inspite ofthis management held enquiry . It is averred that Inquiry Officer withoutfollowing the principles of natural justice held him guilty and that findings recorded by him are perverse. It is contended that management based on the findings , dismissed the workman from the services illegally from 1-10-1999 . It is contended that management's actions being illegal , be set aside.
Maker Tower No. E, 2nd floor, PlotNo. 85, Cuffee Parade ,
Colaba, Mumbai 400005,
AND
Their workman
3. Management Bank resisted the claim of workman by filing written statement (Exhibit 9 ) contending that the workman misappropriated the amount as alleged in the chargesheet which was ' misconduct ' under the Bipartite 10870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] Settlement clause 19.5 ( J) and therefore , he was dismissed as the misconduct was of grave nature . It is averred that the Enquiry Officer giving sufficient opportunity and hearing the workman had recorded findings that he was involved in fraudulently crediting the realization proceeds. It is averred SB Account holder Mr. Razak had lodged complaint to the Police that he was threatened by workman. It is contended that as the principles of natural justice enquiry was held and that findings were based on documentary evidence and based on the findings workman was dismissed . It is contended management's action being legal workman's claiın is devoid of substance and the same be dismissed in limine .
4. By rejoinder Exhibit 10 workman reiterated the recitals in the Claim Statement denying the avernents in Written Statement further contending that the Sub- Manager . Mr. A.C. Silveria and others have played fraud upon the Bank , however , workman has been made a scapegoal .
5. On the basis of the pleadings issues were framed atExhibit 1 and in that context workman filed affidavit in licu of Examination - in - Chief ( Exhibit 14) and closed oral evidence vide Exhibit 15. In rebuttal , however , managcinent did not lead oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 26) .
6. Workman filed written submissions ( Exhibit 17 ) and the Management at Exhibit 18. On hearing the counsel and perusing the record and the written submissions , I record my findings on the following Issues for the reasons mentioned below:
Issue
Finding
3. Whether the action of management of M/ s . Syndicate Bank by dismissing Shri C. K. Diwalkar from the services of the bank is justified and Proper? Yes
4. What relief the workınan is entitled to?
Does not arise .
REASONS
Issure Nos . 1 and 2
7. In this second round of litigation question of quantum of punishment arises on the basis of the enquiry conducted against 2nd Party . Enquiry was observed fair and proper by passing Part 1 Award clated 21st November , 2002 yet it is not challenged by the 2nd Party Workman . SO stage of deciding the quantum of punishment comes .
8. Charge of misconduct is alleged against 2nd Party Workman . 2nd Party joined 1st Party as a Clerk with effcet from 1st May, 1985. Initially he was appointed as Attendant with the party with effect from 12-2-1980 . During his employment 2nd Party took active part in depositing mobilization activities . He was also taking part in sports activities and as well as taking part in cricket and was known as a good cricketer . He was placed under suspension on 18-9-1998 during the course of the enquiry . Charge sheet was served on him on 12-9-1998 alleging charge of dishonest intention of deriving unlawful pecuniary benefits . There
was also charge of fraudulently crediting an amount of Rs . 1,06,3 69/- being realization proceeds of CDD 179/98 and 180/98 to SB A/ c . No. 185523 of Mr. Razak and it was alleged that said amount was misappropriated by him fraudulently obtaining signature ofMr. Razak on withdrawal slip No. 022641 on 24-3-98 to withdraw the amount to the tune ofRs . 1,00,000- and by forging signature of said Razak byusing withdrawal slip No. 022712 on 26-3-1998 by which Rs . 6000/- were withdrawn from the SB Account No. 185523 ofMr. Razak . Looking that those are serious and severe allegations and treating said misconduct as serious, enquiry was conductedwhere evidence was lead before the Enquiry Officer. Relying on the evidence Enquiry Officer observed 2nd Party guilty of the charges levelled against him . The allegation of fraudulently crediting an amount of Rs . 1,06,369 of the above referred account of Mr.Razak which was proved misappropriated fraudulently by fraudulent act by 2nd Party by crediting the withdrawal slips . He did all that with fraudulent intention to deceive the account holder Mr. Razak which affected on the reputation of the 1st Party. Enquiry Officer after realizing the evidence placed before held the charge of gross misconduct ofdoing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank which fall under Clause 19.5 (J ) of Bipartite Scattlement levelled against the 2nd Party as proved against him . Full opportunity was given to the 2nd Party. Enquiry was conducted fairly and properly . In the enquiry it has come on record that , the withdrawal slip for Rs . 1. lakh was issued and filled up by the 2nd Party took signature on the withdrawal slip stating that he wanted to show the same to the Manager , and after that he used withdrawal slip of the customer left with the first party Bank without knowing the consequences of his signing the withdrawal slip , and knowing that he had no money in his account and that he had also no surplus money with him. It has come on record that the withdrawal slip for Rs . 6000/- was also fraudulently obtained by the 2nd Party. This confirms beyond doubt. that the withdrawal slips were issued and filled in by the 2nd Party for the above fraudulent acts in order to gain pecuniary advantage at the cost of the Bank . Further the credit slips for deposits of amount on 6 different dates,to the S. B. account of Mr.Razak were prepared and signed by the 2nd Party (except one slip signed by Mrs. Razak as the 2nd Party got her signature at her residence in the absence ofMr.Razak ) . In his depositions the customer Mr. Razak stated that , he neither received not deposited such a huge amount . The circumstances led to the conclusion that the 2nd party deposited the amount in the S. B. account of Mr. Razak from his own source and not as given by the customer . Thus , Mr. Razak had no knowledge of either the wrong credit of amount to his account , or subsequent withdrawal and deposit of the amount to his account . It has come on record in the Enquiry proceedings that it was because of the fraudulent involvement of the 2nd Party, the wrong credit , withdrawal of the amount and subsequent credit had taken place and there was no doubt as to why 2nd Party's usc of his position in the Bank to perpetrate the said fraudulent 10871 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Sri Silveria signed the slip without noticing the change in the name of the credit slip and for his negligence departmental action was initiated and appropriate punishment was awarded to Sri Silveria. In the instant case, the amount was credited to the SB account of Sri Razak . Why it should be the account of Sri Razak only but not of anyone else , if it has been happened by mistake ? Here the motive is quite apparent . The crediting of the amount to the SB account of Sri Razak was not by mistake but was an intentional one enacted by the 2nd Party himself. The 2nd Party prepared the credit slips to the SB Account of Sri Razak with a malafide intention to withdraw the amount later without the knowledge of the account holder . It has come on record that Sri Razak, being an illiterate and not able to transact in his account with the Bank on his own , relied on the 2nd Party on all occasions and Sri Diwalkar helped him in all his banking transactions . This fact was exploited by the 2nd Party to espouse his own cause . The 2nd Party, knowing fully well that Sri Razak would not know anything about the fraudulent transaction , credited the amount to the SB A/c of Sri Razak and by exploiting the ignorance of Sri Razak, got the withdrawal slips signed by Sri Razak and withdrew the amount and, thus derived fraudulently transaction . It is normal that , the 2nd Party wanted to cover up his track and the best method he found was to destroy the credit slips prepared by him and which wereused for crediting the amount to the SB account of Sri Razak. Had the credit slips remained on record, there would have been no excuse/defence . However, he could not destroy the entire evidence and the evidence brought on record coupled with circumstantial evidence conclusively proved that the 2nd Party indulged in the fraudulent activities . Contrary to the stand of the defence, it is strange that only the three credit slips pertaining to that date are missing and all the other slips are found in tact and on record. It is to be noted that the said credit slips were in existence till the sub -day was written as the non - appearance of the entries pertaining to the missing credit slips would have caused difference while tallying the day's transaction . Thus it is apparent that after necessary entries were made and after the day's transactions were tallied, the slips were destroyed . Though the Management exercises all reasonable control over its records indulging day's slips , when an insider, i.e. , an employee is hell bent upon in destroying the credit slips with a motive to destroy the evidence, the employee finds ways and means to do so . The Bank reposes total confidence on its employees on the premise that the employees would always act in the best interest of the Bank. But in the instant case , the 2nd Party demolished such confidence reposed on him and resorted to fraudulent activities . In a financial institution , the continuation of an employee whose dishonesty has been established would harm the interest of the Bank. Had the 2nd Party been allowed to contime in the services of the bank, it would have caused irreparable damage to the interest and image of the bank and the Bank cannot repose confidence in him. The Management wishes to further submit that the 2nd Party was found guilty on the basis of acts and to derive undue pecuniary benefit therefrom at the cost of the Bank. The SB account holder Mr.Razak had lodged a police complaint stating that the second party, threatened him and that he was warned by the second party and was asked to inform the Branch Manager that those withdrawals and deposits were made by him only. The complaint was taken on record during the course of enquiry . The charges were clearly established in the departmental enquiry anck the punishment ofdismissal from the services of the Bank was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority . No financial institution will retain on its rolls an cmployee like this who has indulged in fraudulent acts of misappropriation . The Bank, being a financial institution dealing in public funds , expects honesty and financial integrity on the part of its every employee in his/her dealings with the Bank, Public and customers and it is of utmost importance . In Banking Institution faith and trust of the customer is utmost important . It is clear from the records brought before during the enquiry that the 2nd Party failed to discharge his duties honestly and also derived undue pecuniary benefit at the cost of the bank . Though the misutilised amount has been fully reimbursed, the fact that the 2nd Party manipulated the records to his advantage and misused the trust reposed on him by the Bank and the customer called for a serious view of the matter . When the Bank lost confidence in him, the continuation of 2nd Party in the services of the Bank would have had serious implications . The 2nd Party , by misusing the position he enjoyed in the services of the Bank and also the confidence reposed on him by the customer acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank . Reinstating him will have considerable adverse effect on other employees and if leniency is shown to him , it will crode the confidence of other employees in the system, adversely effect the morale of the employees and above all crode the confidence of the public in the entire Banking system. This will also effect the image of the Bank . In the instant case Demand Draft bearing No. 816311 dated 16-03-98 for Rs. 106720 issued by The Koddinar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. , Kodinar being the realization proceeds of CDD No. 179/98 and 180/98 in respect of Cheque No. 704773 dated 23-2-1998 and Cheque No. 204772 dated 16-2-98 drawn on the Kodinar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. , Kodinar Gujrat for Rs . 106946.87 was receivedby Shri A.C. Silveria, Sub Manager of the Branch through Maruti Courier Service and the same was given to the 2nd Party, who on that date was working in Bills Department, to prepare appropriate credit slips to enable him to send the draft in clcaring . The 2nd Party instead ofpreparing the credit slips for credit of CDD prepared credit slips for credit of CDD prepared credit skuos fir Rs . 321/- towards Bank's commission , Rs . 30 /- towards Miscellaneous Income and Rs . 106369/- favouring S. B. Account No. 185523 ofMr. Razak who resides in the same locality where the 2nd Party resides, an illiterate customer and who depends exclusively on the 2nd Party for his banking transactions. After preparing the slips he got it signed by Shri A.C. Silveria, Sub Manager when Sri Silveria was busy with other work.
10872
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को05-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011 /159/2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006 the evidence adduced before the enquiry forum and that the contention that it was only on presumption is far from truth. The Management by dismissing the 2nd Party from the services of the Bank exhibited that it cannot allow a dishonest employee to continue in its services . The Management acted well within its right while dismissing the second party and the right was exercised judiciously and giving cogent reasons . The action of the Management was not arbitrary but was well founded and on solid grounds and the action is legal and justified.
9. Il we consider all this coupled with case made out byboth , I conclude that , when charges are proved against 2nd Party question of interfering in the quantum of punishment does not arise .
S.O. 5045. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 89/2002 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 Allahabad Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on05-12-2006.
[No. L- 1201 1/159/2002- IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II ,
NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI , I.D. No. 89/2002
IN THE MATTER OF : Shri Hari Lal Mourya, C/o . The General Secretary. Allahabad Bank Employees ' Association , C/o. Allahabad Bank , Baroda House . New Delhi - 110001 .
Versus
The Dy .General Manager , Allahabad Bank, 17, Parliament Street , New Delhi - 110001 .
AWARD
10. Besides , Ld . Advocate for the 1st Party placed reliance on number of citations to contend that in such a proved misconduct generally the Court should not interfere . Hc placed reliance on the copy of the citation published in (1 ) 2005 ( 1 ) CLR page 959 (Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Reddy& ors ) , (2) 1998(4) SCC p . 310 Union Bank of India vs vishwa Mohan), (3) Copy of citation published in 2003 [ SCC ( L & S ) ] page 363 (Regional Manager , U.P. SRTC V/ s . Hotilal ) ,( 4) copy of citation published in 1999 LAB I.C. page 2091 ( State Bank of India vs. T. J. Paqul ) , (5) copy of citation published in 2000 II CLR p.13 (U.P.State of Road Transport Corporation vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma) , (6) copy ofcitation published in 2000 II CLR p . 407 U. P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohanlal Gupta and ( 7 ) copy of citation published in 1997 ( 75 ) FLR SC page 949 ( Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and ors . vs. Ashok Kumar Arora ) reveals that when disciplinary authority places reliance on the finding of the Enquiry Officer where misconduct is observed proved in that case it does not suit proper for the Court to interfere . Besides looking to the nature of misconduct proved against the 2nd Party and looking at the 1st Party who is engaged in dealing in Banking business which is run only on good reputation and if it is expected from all does allow take lenient view against employee like this against whom such a scrious misconduct is proved and if Court interfere in my considered view, it will give wrong signal . So I conclude that this is not a fit case to interfere in the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary authority . Hence 1 answer this point to that effect and passes the following order :
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No.L - 12011/ 159/ 2002- IR (B - II ) Central Government Dt . 07-11-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication .
ORDER
The point runs as hereunder : -
(a) Reference is rejected;
(b) There is no order as to its Costs .
Mumbai.
4th October, 2006
A. A. LAD, Presiding officer
"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in awarding the punishment of withdrawal of special allowance for two years to Shri Hari Lal Mourya, Peon- cum- Bill Collector working at Baroda House , New Delhi was justified ? Ifnot, what relief is the workman entitled to ?" नई दिल्ली , 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
The case was taken up in Lok Adalat on 29-11-2006 . The workman was persuaded to decide his case in Lok Adalat on previous dates . The workman has filed application for withdrawing his case .
का.आ 5045.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , 10878 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
No dispute award is given.
Date: 01-12-2006.
R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ 5046.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरंण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/324/97- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] । राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi, the 5th December , 2006
S.O. 5046. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 71/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 05-12-2006.
[No. L- 12012/324/97 -IR (B -II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
2. The case of applicant Shri Raghuvir Singh Kushwaha in brief is as follows . That he is original resident ofvillageGuna and is a member of backward class . That he wasappointed by the oral orders of the then Manager of Bankof India, Guna Branch in the year 1986 for discharging work of a peon. That he worked for a few days in the year 1986. In the year 1987, he worked for 150 days . His salary was paid by depositing the same in his saving account in the Bank . In the year 1989 , his name was sent for regularisation on the post of safai karmachari . He sent a notice through an advocate on 17-3-97 to the Regional Manager and the Branch Manager of Guna branch to the effect that on 22-3-97, interview was being held for filling the post ofclass IV employee but he was not called for the interview. On it he was seized to work from March 21 , 1997 on receipt of notice by the bank . He worked in the year 1994for 292days and in the year 1995 for 295 days because the work was taken from him even on Sundays and Government holidays . In the year 1996 his house collapsed due to rains, therefore he sent an application for leave 3 to 4times but being a daily wager , his application was not taken and in this manner during the year 1996, he worked for218 days . The applicant worked for more than 240 days .. Hewas not paid bonus for a few years . For a few years , the payment was made to him by his name and thereafter he was paid from the head of miscellaneous charges . The applicantworked in the following years as mentioned below against each year :-
ANNEXURE
Year
Days
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
about 1 week
1986
1987
about 100 days INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
1988
about 100 days NO. CGIT/LC/R/71/98
1989
about 250 days PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIC.M. SINGH
1990
258days
1991
259days
Shri Raghuvir Singh Kushwaha, S/o Shri Ram Prasad Kushwaha,
1992
257 days
R/o Purani Chhawani , Near Kushwaha Mandir ,
1993
259days
Workman
Guna(MP)
1994
292days
Versus
1995
294days
Regional Manager ,
1996
Bank of India, Gwalior Region ,
about 210 days Jhansi Road,
Lashkar , Gwalior .
Management
AWARD
Passed on this , 16th day of November; 2006-
1.The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification . No. L- 12012 /324 /97 - IR (B- II ) dated 21-4-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management ofBank of India in terminating the services of Shri Raghuvir Singh Kushwaha, S/o Ram Prasad Kushwaha w.e.f. 22-3-97 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"
The applicant's house was collapsed in the month ofAugust 1996 and because the Bank does not sanction any leave to the daily wager therefore he was seized to work. The applicant worked from 1st January to 21 st March in the year 1997 for about 50 days and on 22-3-97 he was terminated from service by oral orders . The said order is illegal and has been passed in violation of Sec . 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. That after his termination from service, the Bank employed a new employee who is still working in Guna branch and in this manner the Bank has violated the provisions of Sec . 25H of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is prayed by the applicant that his termination from service be declared illegal and he be reinstated in service with back wages and other benefits .
10874
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
nature for doing job of casual work will not be given regular employment as for regular employment, the management has to follow the recruitment policy . The applicant was never engaged on regular basis continuously for 240days or for more than240 days in any of the calendar year . It has been specifically denied by the management that Shri R.S. Kushwaha was engaged as peon in 1986 by the then Manageron verbal instructions . The applicant was engaged purely on temporary basis for doing casual nature of job as and when required in 1987 and he had been paid total amount of Rs . 915.81 for working on different days in 1987 . It is denied by the management that the applicant's name was recommended for the post of permanent sweeper by the manager at that time in 1989. It is submitted by the management that the applications were called from employment exchange , Guna for filling of one sub - staff vacancy at Binaganj Branch for SC candidates only . His name was not sponsored by the employment exchange . He was not called for interview . It is specifically denied by the management that Shri R. S. Kushwaha had worked 290 days in 1994 and 295 days in 1995. There is no question of working on Sundays and holidays as Bank remains closed on these days . It is further denied by the management Bank that Shri R. S. Kushwaha had worked 218 days in 1996 and 50 days upto 22-3-97 . The applicant was engaged todo temporary nature of work on reimbursement basis . It issubmitted by the management that the applications were called for the post of one sub- staff vacancy at Binaganj and applications have been called from employment exchange , Guna . The interview was taken of those candidates whose names were forwarded by Employment Exchange . The applicant's name was not sponsored by the employment exchange . The applicant has not acquired the required status for absorption and payment or retrenchment and no violation of Sec . 25- F of I. D. Act , 1947 has been made . It is specifically denied by the management that the provisions of I.D. Act 1947 have been violated . It is prayed by the management that the case of the applicant is devoid of merit and the same is deserved to be dismissed .
3. Vide order dated 16-8-05 of this reference proceeding, it was ordered that the reference shall proceed exparte against workman .
4. The management in order to prove their case filed affidavitof Shri T.D. Pandey, the then Sr.Branch Manager atShivpuri Branch of the management Bank and Shri H.P. Dwivedi , the then Chief Manager at Janpath Branch at New Delhi of the management .
5. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for the management . I have very carefully gone through the evidence on record.
6. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman, there is no evidence on record for proving the case of the workman. As against above, the case of the management stands fully proved from the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavits of Shri T.D. Pandey, the then Sr. Branch Manager , Shivpuri branch of the management 3. The management in order to contest the case filed their Written Statement . Their case in brief is as follows . The relationship of employer and workman does not exist between the management and the applicant . The applicant has not disclosed anything with regard to his employment in the management Bank , which is the basis and preliminary requirement to raise an industrial dispute nor he has produced any documentary proof in support of his claim of cinployment in management Bank. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour has erred in terming the applicant as workman . As already stated above , the applicant is not a workınan or even casual workman in terms of sub - sec ( s) of Section (2 ) of ID . Act 1947. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour has further erred in mentioning about termination . Termination of services of a person arises only when he is employed after appointment either temporarily or intermittently .Whereas , in the present case, the applicant was never employed and as such there was no question of termination of services . The Central Government is entitled to make a reference of an industrial dispute between the parties . From the order of reference it seems that the Governinent has made a reference assuming certain facts which did not exist . The order of reference shows that the Government has already decided that employer - employee relationship existed and there was a termination . This is factually incorrect . The reference has been made mechanically without application of mind and without considering the relevant material placed before them . The terms of reference as it stands are highly prejudicial to the management . In view of the above , the reference is not only illegal , bad in law but also void - ab - initio and has no Icgs to stand in the eye of law. Appointment in the Bank is governed by certain statutory rules and regulations . A person seeking employment in the Bank has to go through the entire procedure prescribed for getting appointment. Only such employees are entitled for regular appointment by following the aforesaid procedure prescribed for appointment . At times , the Brartch Manager in order to ensure smooth customers ' service are required to resort to engaging any person whenever there is a temporary increase in the work of casual nature and/or where the regular sub - staff are on leave from duties . Under these circümstances , the persons so engaged are duly compensated by fair amount. The Branch Manager is not the appointing authority of any staff employed by the Non- applicant Bank . The then Regional Manager (now Zonal Manager) with prior approval of the Ministry of Finance received from Head Office of the management Bank is competent to appoint staff in subordinate cadre after fulfilling Central Government directions which include icquisitioning of eligible candidates from concerned employment exchange , consideration of reservation to SC/ ST/OBC candidates besides scrutiny of the eligibility of the sponsored candidates for appointment by way of conducting test/interview etc. The Regional Manager(now the Zonal Manager) has never appointed the applicant . The applicant in this case was told by the management that the person engaged for few days purely on temporary [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Bank and Shri H.P. Dwivedi the then Chief Manager at Janpat Branch at New Delhi of the management Bank.
7. In view of the above the reference deserves tobe answered in favour of the management and against the workman Shri Raghuvir Singh Kushwaha. But having considered the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the view that the parties should be directed to bear their own costs of this reference . The reference is answered in favour of the management and against Shri Raghuvir Singh Kushwaha holding that the action of the management Bank in terminating the services of Shri Raghuvir Singh Kushwaha , s/ o Shri Ram Prasad Kushwaha w.e.f. 22-3-97 is legal and justified and the workman is not entitledto any relicf. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
8. Copy of the award be sent to Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ 5047. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-31015/1/2003- आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006
S.O. 5047. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 3/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
[No. L- 31015/ 1/2003 - IR (B - II) ]
RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 MUMBAI
PRESENT : A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT -2/3 of2003
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MUMBAI
3916G1/06-23 .
10875
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
(1) The Chairman Mumbai Port Trust Port House, S. V. Marg , Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400038 .
(2) M/s . Asha Caterers C/o . Evelyn Guest House Apollo Bunder , Mumbai -400 001 . V/s.
THEIR WORKMEN
( 1) The President Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Workers Union Kamgar Sadan, Nawab Tank Road Mazgaon,Mumbai -400010.
(2) Shri Prasad Singh Yadav Evelyne Building , Mumbai Port Trust Mumbai -400001 .
APPEARANCES :
For the Employer ( 1 ) : Mr. Umesh Nabar Advocate .
: Absent .
For the Employer ( 2 )
For the workmen
: Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate .
Mumbai , dated 30th October, 2006
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L- 31015 / 1 /2003 - IR (B - II ) dated 22-01-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( I ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:
"Whether the contract between the Board of Trustees of the Part of Mumbai and the contractor is a sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive the concerned employees of the benefits available to permanent workmen of the Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai ?
Whether the concerned workmen employed as Sweepers , Cleaners , Watchmen , waiters etc. should be declared as permanent workmen of the Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai ?
What are the wages and consequential benefitsto be paid to the concerned employées ? "
2. To support the subject matter referred in the refererice, second party filed statement of claim at Ex - 10, which is disputed by first party by filing Written Statement atEx - 11 . Issues were framed at Ex - 15 and reference was placed for recording evidence .
3. By filing purshis Ex - 28 both parties requestedto dispose it of in Lok Adalat. Accordingly order is passed .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
10876
ORDER
VideEx -28 , reference is disposed of in Lok Adalat .
30-10-2006
अधिकरण- II , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 875/2 के 5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer
[सं. एल-12012/80/2002- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006 Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate appeared for Union The application for disposal of reference proceedings for want of prosecution is taken on record. Posted for Award.
Sd/- J.H. Sawant Advocate
Sd/- Suresh Babu Pancl Member
Sd/- (NandiniMenon) Advocate
S.O. 5048. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (875/2 K 5 ) of the Central Government Industrial -Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on4-12-2006.
Sd/- A.M. Koyande Advocate
Sd/- M.B. Anchan Advocate
Ex-No. 28
[No.L- 12012/80/2002- IR (B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL , TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI
CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH Reference No. CGIT - 2/3 OF 2003
PresidingOfficer : Shri KULDIP SINGH
Case No. L. D. No. 875/2k5 .
Mumbai Port Trust AND
Registered on 9-09-2005 Date ofDecision 3-11-2006 .
Their workman represented by MbPT & DGW Union Application for disposal of reference for want of prosecution.
Shri M. S. Mehra S/o Shri Harke Ram, House No. 108/30, Chhotu Ram Colony , Rohtak (Haryana) ,
...PETITIONER MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR :
Versus
State Bank of India, the Assistant General Manager, (Disciplinary Authority) StateBank of India, Region - II, Zonal Office (Haryana), Sector-8 -C, Chandigarh
...RESPONDENT Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees Union representing the workmen covered in Reference Proceedings has instructed the undersigned Advocate to apply for disposal of the Reference proceedings for want of prosecution as the Union would like to pursue the case of the workinen afresh with the management . Mumbai
APPEARANCE
Date 30-10-2006
Forthe Workman :
Shri J.S. Rana AR
Sd/- (Jaiprakash Sawant) Advocate for MbPTD & GW Union
Forthe Management : Mr. N.K. Shrama Advocate .
Allowed. Sd/-
AWARD
(A. A. Lad) Presiding Officer
30-10-2006
नई दिल्ली , 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
The matter for the consideration of this Tribunal at this stage is whether the Management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry before terminating the services of Shri M.S Mehra, the workman on 2nd December , 1999 ; and thatthe penalty imposed on him was justified and if not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? The matter has come for the consideration of this Tribunal on a reference from Govt. ofIndia vide their order No. L- 12012/80/2002 - IR (B - I ) dated 28th June, 2002. The appropriate Govt . has desired to know as under :
का.आ. 5048.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकारी भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
"Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal office (Haryana & U.T, Chandigarh) , Chandigarh in removing Shri M.S Mehra, Teller , SBI Branch Hissar Mandi (Haryana) from Bank service w.e.f. 2-12-1999, after imposing the penalty, is justified? If not, what relief Shri M.S. Mehra is entitled?" On getting the reference from the Tribunal the partics appeared through their Counsel . The workman filed the statement of claim , to which the Management filed the reply. They also placed on record the photo copies of the inquiry proceedings . Since the Management took the plea that the dismissal of the workman was after holding a domestic inquiry , and the workman alleged that the inquiry was not conducted fairly , therefore, before proceeding further, it was decided to examine the fairness of the inquiry. The parties submitted their written arguments , for and against the fairness of the inquiry which are on record . I have gone through the file carefully.
There is no dispute between the parties that the workman was charge sheeted for mis - conduct on 18th July, 1996, to which he did not submit the reply, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority initiated a Departmental Inquiry against him. The Inquiry Officer held the workman guilty ofmis -conduct and the Disciplinary Authority, on the basis ofthe finding of the inquiry , issued a show cause notice to the workman proposing the punishment for his mis- conduct . After affording the workman opportunity to explain his position and after due considerations of the contentions raised by him on writing and during personal hearing , the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with him and confirmed the tentative decision , arrived at by him and awarded the punishment of removal from service to the workman. The workman approached the appellate authority, by way of appeal , but his appeal was also dismissed . As a result of the demand notice , submitted by the workman, the present refcrence has been made to this Tribunal by the appropriate Govt.
Before I approach to examine the submission made by the workman it would be useful to refer to the charge levelled against the workman on 18th July, 1996. There were four charges levelled against him such as that on 21st Fcb. , 1995 he accepted Rs . 500 from Shri N.K Jain, SB Account No. 54380 and made a superfluous Credit entry but didnot deposit the amount in the chest of the Bank, on 10th April , 1995 he received Rs . 1000 from Mahavir Prashad, SB Account No. 44/47051 and made the entry in the ledger sheet of the Bank but did not support it with a voucher and later on deleted the entry under his own signatures . On 21 st April , 1995 he received Rs . 500 from Ram Dhani , SB Account No.48961 , but did not deposit the amount and later on deleted the entry and on 17th April , 1995 and 8th May, 1995, he received Rs . 400 and 200 respectively from Dcv Raj , SB Account NO . 3/44185 , issued receipt for the amount , but did not enter the same in the teller register scroll . It was further alleged that the workman did not reply to the notice issued by the authorities of the Bank in regard
10877
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
tothese lapses. In the circumstance the Management held inquiry against the workman, the charges were proved in the inquiry and so the workman was awarded the punishment of dismissal from service . With regard to the fairness ofthe inquiry it is claimed by the workman that the same is defective, therefore, the order of removal based thereon is required to be set aside. According to him the Managementdid not examine any depositor in support of the allegations , therefore , the findings of the inquiry was defective . According to him the workman had a right to cross examine those depositors and the Management havingdenied this right to him did not act fairly . As such the findings based on that inquiry was bad in law.
The report of the inquiry is on record . A perusal of it shows that the Inquiry Officer considered each article of charge against the workman separately. With regard to the charge ofhaving received Rs.500 by the workman from Shri N.K Jain holding Account No. SB 54380, it was noticed by the inquiry officer that the workman had made two credits ofRs . 500/- each in the Ledger Sheet on 21st Feb. , 1995, but no supporting voucher for the same were prepared.Those credits were also not entered in theBank's Scroll . Shri S.K Anand, the witness of the Management who was then the Deputy Manager at Hissar Branch, stated at the two entries were initiatled by the workman and the final balance was also certified by him as correct balance. This fact was also certified by O.P Madan , PW who was the incharge of the SB Account who stated that the cuttings were made by the workman . The witnesses of theManagement also proved that in regard to those cutting a letter was issued to the workman by the Chief Manager , Hissar on 7th August , 1995. The Management produced Sh . S.K Anand as witness who in his statement admitted that it was Mr. M.S Mehra who had made the cuttings in the entries relating to the account of Shri N.K Jain on 21st Feb. , 1995 and in relation to the entries of Rs.1000/- in the account of Shri Mahavir Prashad, Account No. 44/47051 on 10th April, 1995. This statenient was made by Shri S. K. Anand in presence of the workman and the defence representative, who put the witness a number of questions but could not dislodge the claim of the Management that the two entries made in the Account of Shri N.K Jain relating to Rs . 500 on 21st Feb. , 1995 were made and initialed by Shri M.S Mchra, the workman. The workman neither alleged nor proved as to why the witness spoke against him. Even no suggestion was put by him in thisregard.
The next charge against the workman was with regard to the entries made on 10th April, 1995 in the Account of Shri Mahavir Prashad, holding SB Account No. 44/47051 . The Management produced the witnesses S/Shri S.K. Anand and O.P. Madan . Shri O.P. Madan deposed that from June, 1994 to June, 1997 he had served in the Hissar Branch of the Bank in the PBD Division ; that the entry dated 21st Feb. , 1995 in the SB Account No. 54380 relating to Shri N.K. Jain was made by the workman and the same was also signed by the workman. Regarding other entries 10878
of Rs . 1000 in the account of Mahavir Prashad holding Account no.44/47051 , he stated that the entry dated 10th April , 1995, was also made by the workman teller , who had initialed the cutting made in the entry . This witness was also cross examined by the defence representative at length but nothing could be found to suggest that the entries made in the account of Shri Mahavir Prashad were not that of the workman . Both Mr. S.K Anand and O.P Madan admitted that no depositor had come to make a complaint about the entries in their account . Thus the question of calling to those account holders as witness was not necessary and making of false entries was proved by the witnesses who were colleagues of the workman and were posted in the same Branch and were the relevant authorities to speak about the entries . During the course of cross -examination the defence representative could not proved nor even could sugsuggest as to why Shri O.P Madan and S.K Anand spoke against the workman.
Regarding charge No. 3 it was stated by the witnesses of the Management namely S.KAnand and O.P. Madan that the entry of Rs.500/- was recorded in the account of Shri Ram Dhani holding SB Account No. 48961/50 and then it was deleted. The cutting and the closing balance was initialed by the workman . These witnesses were also cross examined by the defence representative of the workman. He put the questions about the procedure for making of payment after authentication of the last balance and following of the bank's instructions . However, he did not put any specific question about the entries made in the account of Ram Dhani , more specifically the entry of Rs . 500/ - . Thus the work man failed to show as to why the witness spoke against the workman even when he was the colleague of the witness . Regarding Charge No. 4, the Management produced Shri V. K Ashdir, the Bank cmployce as a witness who claimed that the Bank had received a complaint from Shri Dev Raj , holder of Account No.32/44315 that he had deposited amount of Rs . 400 and 200/- at two occasions by handing over the money to the workman, but the amount was not credited in his account . The complaint was given to him for verification, by the Branch Manager . The complaint was supported by the photo copies of the receipts . The workman was asked to cxplain the same but he did not gave any reply and later on the Bank received an application from the complainant withdrawing his complaint stating that the workman has paid him the money back , therefore , he withdraws the complaint . The defence representative cross examined the witness hut he could not establish that no such complaint was ever made or that Shri Dev Raj did not hold such an account ; and that he had never made a complaint.
It is true that the Management did not produce the depositor's as witnesses in the case and as it has come on record that though one of the depositor Dev Raj made a complaint in writing against the workman but later on he withdrew the same on the ground that the workman has paid him the money back , which he had given to him to deposit in his account. In such circumstances the
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Management rightly opted not to examine the depositors as witnesses when the record of Bank proved the charges made against the workman . As regards the other three charges the entries made but later on deleted . The record ofthe Bank is there and it is also not denied that the workman was the concerned person who had made those entries . In such circumstances it was the duty of the workman to have explained as to how those entries were made and then deleted . The inquiry held by the management was not a criminal trial where it was the duty of the management to have proved the guilt of the delinquent officer beyond the reasonable doubt . Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Tamilnadu V/ s S. Subramaniyam has laid down as under :
"It is also the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the evidence on record and record findings whether the charge has been proved or not . It is equally settled law that technical rule of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings and authority is to consider the material on record . In judicial review , it is settled law that the court or the Tribunal has no power 10 trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion . "
Inview of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is , therefore , not to reapreciate the evidence produced in the domestic inquiry . The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is only to see whether the inquiry officer had conducted the inquiry fairly and properly; whether the workman was provided with the charge sheet, the opportunity to defend himself. He was provided with the opportunity to produce the evidence , allowed to cross examine the witnesses of the Management and put up his case before the inquiry officer . The workman should not have the grievance that he was not provided with an opportunity to put up his case before the inquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. There is also no weight in the submissions of the workman that the Management only relied upon the statements of its witnesses and did not examine the depositors . In this regard I am supported by the judgement of Madras High Court in the case ofA. Baliahdavid V/ s Regional Manager Central Bank of India and others reported as 2001 Labour Industrial Cases 267 1 where there Lordship have held as under:
" Industrial Dispute Act ( 14 of 1947) Sch . 3 item 1- Shastri Award para 556 Desai Award Para 17.14 Disciplinary inquiry bank employees a head Cashier- alleged tohave committed fraudulent manipulation and falsification ofrecord-defalcated large amount- conclusion arrived at by theDisciplinary Authority cannot be interfered with on ground that Management relied on its own witnesses without examining single account holder as witness in proof of charges and that Management has arrived at pre-determined conclusion etc. "
I have also considered the question of the punishment awarded to the workman . In my opinion the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
punishinent was not disproportionate to the misconduct ofthe workman . No financial institution can afford to retain an employee who shatters the trust of the depositor. It is the hard money of the people which they save with difficulty and want to keep in safe custody, for their odd times, but when the person who is entrusted with the money, plays with it in the manner it is alleged and proved in this case , who will come to the Bank to keep his money . Thus the punishment awarded is not disproportionate.
After going through all the evidence placed on record and the submissions made by the Counsel for the parties 1 have come to the conclusion that the inquiry held against the workman was fair and proper, therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference made bythe appropriate Government is answered in theseterms that the action of the Assistant General Management SBI Zonal Office Chandigarh in removing Shri M. S. Mehra, SB1 Hissar/Haryana from Bank service w.e.f. 2nd Dec., 1999, after imposing the penalty of dismissal on him wasjustified and the workman is not entitled to any relief . The award is passed . 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, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5049.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 703/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/95/1996- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 5th December , 2006
S.O. 5049.- In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 703/ 2005 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court- 11 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-12-2006 .
[No. L- 12012/95/ 1996- IR (B -I) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, CHANDIGARH
: SHRI KULDIP SINGH.
Presiding Officer
CASE NO . I.D. No 703/2005
10879
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Registered on 25-8-2005 Date ofDecision 10-11-2006.
ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY (H.Q. ) STATE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, SECTOR- 17 , CHANDIGARH
... PETITIONER
Varsus
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER , STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGION - I, ZONAL OFFICE , SHIMLA (H.P. )
....RESPONDENT APPEARANCE
For theWorkman
: Shri O.P. Batra AR For the Management : Sh. S.K. Gupta, Advocate .
AWARD
TheGovt. of India vide their notification No. L - 12012/ 95/96dated 28th Jan. , 1997 referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal :-
"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India represented through Assistant General Manager , Region - I , Zonal Office , H.P Shimla, in terminating the services of Shri . C.P. Mehta a temporary employee w.e.f. 25th March, 1974 and subsequently not calling him for special testfor absorption of such temporary employees , Held on 22nd July, 1979, 25th May, 1980 and 3rd October, 1982 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman Shri C.P. Mehta is entitled to and from which date ?"
The reference was registered for consideration and notices were issued to the parties to appear and state their cases . The parties appeared through their Counsel/ representatives . The workman filed his Claim Petition, rejoinder and the affidavit in support of his pleadings , Management filed reply to the claim of the workman, as made out by him his statement of claim and rejoinder . They supported the case of the Management with the affidavit of their Assistant General Manager , S. S. Rawat . They placed on record documents including settlement deal dated 17th Nov. , 1987 , entered into between the State Bank of India and workmen employed in the State Bank of India representedbyAll India State Bank of India Staff Federation , and an agreement dated 22nd August , 1997. They also placed ori recordthe affidavit of one Anil Kumar Aggarwal. the Desk Officer of the Management . The workman appeared as a witness and the Management produced Shri S.S. Rawat as their witness .
The claim of the workman is that he was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India and he had joined in the Talwandi Branch, in the State of Punjab ; that earlier, he wasappointed in June , 1973 as a Temporary Clerk and was posted in the Ferozepur City Branch of the Management Bank and his services were terminated on 15th March , 10880
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
denied that he was given opportunity to appear in the test, afresh, as per the agreement dated 17th November , 1987 . He admitted that his appointment made on 4th Jan. , 1990 was a fresh appointment, on the basis of the settlement and he is working in view of that appointment .
1974 without any notice , although he had served the Management for 282 days , 12 months preceding the date ofhis termination . That he had been appointed against the permanent post ; that later on the Management held test for the temporary employees before 13th April , 1989; that the workman was not called for that nor he was appointed till 4th Jan. , 1990 whereas his juniors were appointed. The Management also did not pay him tire back wages in terms of the agreement arrived at between the Management and the staff Federation of the SB . Thus the action of the Management was bad in law, illegal and unjustified. He prayed for setting aside the verbal orders of termination passed against the workman and for a direction to the Management to reinstate him in service and also pay him the back wages for the period 26th March, 1974 to 3rd Jan. , 1990.
The witness of the Management proved his affidavit Ex-M- 1 and the documents Ex - M- 2 and stated that the workman had served the Management from 1 st June, 1973 till 25th March, 1974, on different occasions and had completed the service of 240 days in the last preceding years. He could not say that the Bank had held test on 22ndJuly, 1975, 25th May , 1980 and 3rd October, 1982, for temporary employees . He also could not say that the workman was called for test on those dates . He also admitted not to have granted the status of temporary employees engaged on different dates, but admitted that the workman was not given the compensation at the time oftermination ofhis services . According to him the workman was again appointed on 4th Jan. , 1990, in view of the agreement dated 17th Nov. , 1987. He could also not say whether the juniors of the workman were engaged. He offered to produce the office record of the Management.
Theadmitted case of the parties is that the workman was engaged as temporary employee on 1st June , 1973 and he served the Management till 25th April , 1974. He was again appointed on 4th Jan. , 1990 and is working with the Management.
The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by raising preliminary objections besides submitting their reply to the paras of the Claim Petition. It is their case that the claim of the workman is extremely belated, therefore , not maintainable . Moreover, as per the agrcement dated 17th November, 1987, the Management had to provide a chance to the ex - temporary clerks of the Bank, but there was no stipulation of making them payment of back wages . The retrenchment of the workman took place in the year 1974 and the workman did not challenge his termination till the present reference, therefore, his claim is belated. The association which had raised the present controversy is affiliated to All India State Bank of India Staff Federation . Therefore , they are also bound by the settlement and in view of that their claim for back wages is not justified . Admitting the contents of para 1 and 2 of the Claim Petition, it is stated by them that the workman was engaged to ineet the adhoc requirement of the Bank; that the workmanı, in view of the agreement was called for special test and was appointed as a Clerk in the Bank on 4th November , 1990. The Union having entered into an agreement cannot now raise the claim for back wages ; that since the engagement of the workman was adhoc , therefore , neither the order of appointment nor termination was issued. The workman kept mum for 19 years and now he cannot raisehis claim; Therefore , the same may be rejected.
The claim of the workman is that the Management has not followed the provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of the Industrial Dispute Act, therefore , the termination of the workman is bad in law . Mr. S.S Rawat who appeared as awitness for the Management before this Tribunal admitted that the workman had completed the service of 240 days on theday his services were terminated by the management on 25th March , 1974. He further admitted that no compensationwas paid to the workman but later on added that he cannot say so with certainty without confirming it. The Management neither produced any other witness to admitor deny the payment of compensation or notice wages to the workman at the time of termination of his services on 25th March , 1974. Thus there is no rebuttal to the claim of the workman that the Management had not given him the notice before terminating his services nor paid him the retrenchment compensation . As such the termination of the workman is bad in law and the same be quashed .
In the rejoinder the workman submitted that the delay was rather on the part of the Management since they did not call the workman for interview. The workman repeatedly approached the Management but without any result , therefore , he raised the demand notice ; that the claim made by the Management in other paras , except those admitted by them, are wrong .
Against this claim of the workman the submission of the management is that the claim of the workman cannot be allowed for the reason that he has raised the claim after a period of 19 years and by his own conduct he exhibited thathehad abandoned his claim, therefore, he kept silent . There is no dispute that the workman had submitted the demand notice on 11th March, 1993 whereas his services wereterminated on 25th March, 1974. It is also admitted caseof the parties that the workman was appointed afresh on 4th Jan. , 1990 and even thereafter he took 3 years to raise the demand for his past termination which the law In his statement before this Court the workman proved his affidavit and stated that he was engaged in the Bank on 1st June , 1973 and he had served the Management upto 25th March , 1974 , when his services were terminated; that he had made representation against his termination, but he did not possess the copies thereof nor he remembers the dates on which the presentations were made . He had, however , issued the demand notice . He [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
does not allow. I find sufficient weight in this submission ofthe Management.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana in numerous judgement have denied the reliefto the workman on the grounds ofdelay in raising the claim. In the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. V/s K.P. Madhavan Putty and others, reported as 2000( 1 ) 388 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the workman was not entitled to get his claim referred for adjudication, after having slept over the same for 7 years of his dismissal . Their Lordship noted that though no period of limitation is prescribed for referring the matter for adjudication but according to them reasonable time should be taken to raise the dispute and not so long as a period of seven years . In the present case the workman has raised the dispute after 19 years of his dismissal which shows that he had abandoned the claim and was satisfied with his plight especially when he was reappointed by the Management . In the case of General Manager Punjab Roadways and another V/s Enamual and another , reported as 1995(3 ) RJS 492, their Lordship of Punjab and Haryana High Court , in a Division Bench Judgement held that where the workman did not raise his claim for four and half years , he was not entitled to back wages. Same view was held by the Same High Court in the case reported as 1997 (2) RSJ Page746. In the case of General Manager Punjab Roadways Nawanshahar V/ s Sarsandan Kumar and others , reported as 1997 (2 ) RSJ 576 , their Lordship of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that since the workman kept quite for five ycars without any reason and explanation of delay his silence amounted to abandonment of his claim . Their Lordship relied upon the judgement in the case of Sarhind Cooperative Marketing-Cum-Processing Society Ltd. V/ s Presiding Officer , Labour Court and others , reported as 1991 (2 ) SLR 487 wherein their Lordships held as under:
" if the workman had felt that the order of termination of his services was illegal , as no procedure at all was followed, he could have come up with a demand notice within some reasonable time. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed for raising dispute to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court but it would be only then reasonable that thedispute should be referred as soon as possible andafter conciliation proceedings have failed. To reopen the matter after such a long time and that too without giving any explanation ofdelay would be too iniquitous and had a great disadvantage ofthe Management. "
The next plea of the workman is that the Management had not called him for special test held by them on 22nd July, 1979 , 25th May , 1980 and 3rd October, 1982. He has however failed to show that as to how the Management was under an obligation to call him for such an interview without showing that the Management had provided that opportunity to his juniors or had made fresh recruitments without providing an opportunity to the workman to be considered for the same . In his statement he denied that
10881
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
hisappointment on 4th Jan. , 1990 was as a result of the opportunitygiven to him by the Management to appear in the test, but he then how he got fresh appointment on4th Jan. ,1990. Later on he admitted that the fresh appointments was on the basis of fresh test. Thus he contradicted that he was not given opportunity to compete for reappointment . He has thus failed to prove that the Management had not followed the provision of the law by not providing him the opportunity to compete for fresh appointment . Therefore, the claim of the workman is rejected.Also for the reason of delay in raising the dispute and for the reason that there was no settlement between the Trade Unions of the employees and the management till 17th November , 1987 .
In view of the discussion made above the reference made by the appropriate Govt. is answered in the terms that the workman is not entitled to any relief as he did not raise his claim in time and by his conduct he exhibited that hehas abandoned the claim . 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 afterdue completion.
KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ 5050.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जम्मू ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 134/2के5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12011/23/95- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006
S.O. 5050.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 134/2 K 5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Jammu Rural Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No. L- 12011/23/95- IR (B -I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH ,
: SHRI KULDIP SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER
CASE NO.ID.No 134/2k5 10882
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Registered on 13-02-97
Date ofDecision 20-11-2006.
CHAIRMAN , JAMMU RURAL BANK, TOWN HALL BUILDING, JAMMU
.....Petitioner
Varsus
GENERAL SECRETARY , JRB EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION , WW- 2166 , MAST GARH, JAMMU
isdenying the payment of Special Area Allowance to its employees on the ground that the area do not fall within the Actual Line of Control ; that the Jammu and Kashmir Bank is a sponsoring Bank of the Jammu Rural Bank, therefore, the employees of the Jammu Rural Bank are entitled to all the benefits paid to employees of J & K Bank but are being denied to them. The workers have prayed that the Management be directed to extend the Special AreaAllowance benefit to the staff of Jammu Rural Bank postedwithin 8kms from the border in the Jammu, Kathua , District.
....Respondent
APPEARANCE :
For the Workman : Shri Suresh Bhan AR
: Sh . Virender Kotwall AR
For theManagement
AWARD
The following reference was received from the Govt . of India Vide their order No.L- 120 11 /23/95 -IR (B -1) dated 7th Feb. 1997 :-
" Whether workmen of sponsored Banks are entitled to conditions of service available to workmen in sponsoring Banks ? If so, are the workmen of Jammu Rural Bank entitled for payment of Special Area Allowance at places where it is being paid by the sponsoring Bank to its workmen ? "
On getting the notice of the reference the parties appeared through different representatives duly authorized.
They filed pleadings in the shape of statement of claim, written statement, affidavit of the representative of the workman and that of the representative of the Management. They also placed on record the photo copies of a number ofdocuments . Representative of the workmen Suresh Bhan and Shri K. N Sher, Chairman of the Management Bank also appeared as witnesses .
The claim has been opposed by the Management raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of reference and also by contradicting the grounds taken by the workmen in their statement of claim . It is their case that the workmen are not entitled to Special Area Allowance as perthe letter of Govt. of India, bearing no . 11-3/90-RRB (1 ) dated 22nd Feb. , 1991. As per the memorandum of settlement dated 16th July, 1991, Special Area Allowance was available in the area not included in para 1 to 6 of the letter but were within the 8 kms within the Actual Line of Control. Thus the Branches which were not within a distance of 8 kms from the Actual Line of Control are the places which are not specified even by the State Govt . to provide Special Area Allowance to their own employees . Since theareas for which the workmen are claiming Special Border Area allowance are not included , therefore , in the order of State Government to provide SAA to its employees the Special Area Allowance hereinafter to be referred as ' SAA' is not admissible to the workmen in the face of memorandum ofsettlement dated 16thJuly, 1991. The places where the SAA is being claimed are on the International Border , a fact which was certified by a Deputy Commissioner, Kathua and Assistant Commissioner , Jammu. In view of that the employees of the management Bank , posted within 8 kms . from the International Borders are not entitled to SAA . Village Pargawal having not been included in the list supplied by the Assistant Commissioner, Jammu although it was part of Tehsil Akhnoor the employees posted there are also not entitled to SAA.
The claim of the workman , as made out by their claim statement is that in view of the award passed by the Justice Abul Reddy , Chairman, National Industrial Tribunal the services of the Rural Banks were equated with that of the sponsoring Banks , therefore , all the benefits extended to the sponsoring Banks were extended to the employees of the Rural Bank ; that in the year 1993 the workers demanded the payment of Special Area Allowance/Border Area Allowance , to its members and they also produced the certificates from the competent RevenueOfficers showing the Branches of the Management Bank located within specified distance from the Actual Line of Control . The Management issued instructions to the payment of Special Area Allowance as mentioned in 4th and 5th Bi - partite settlement ; that as per the Bi-partite settlements the employees of the Management Bank were entitled to the payment of Special Area Allowance where the State Government was paying the Special Arca Allowance to its employees i.e within 8 kms . from the Actual Line of Control ; that the Management
The claim of the Management further is that, before all the recommendations of the settlements between the workers and the Management, could be implemented , there came another understanding by which it was directed that SAA be paid to the officer/employees at the rate of 300/- upto the scale of 3000/ and 375 above the salary of Rs . 3001. On ground reality, the places at which the SAA is claimedby the workmen do not fall within 8 kms . of line of actual control and when the Govt . itself is not paying SAA to its employees , the workmen are not entitled for such a relief. The sponsoring Bank of the petitioner is also not paying SAA to its employees , at those places , therefore , also the workmen are not entitled for the same . This fact is duly supported by the Judgement of the Hon'bleHigh Court passed in SWP No.319 of 1995 decided on 29th July, 1999.
[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Onmerit it is the claim of the Management that they are the creation of RRB Act, 1976 and the pay scale and other allowances of the employees are governed by the award dated 30th April , 1990 , passed by the National Industrial Tribunal and the guidelines of the NBARD . Admitting that the sponsoring Bank had released Border Area Allowance to its employees , but inadvertently and the same was withdrawn . The policy was also to keep parity of pay and allowances among employees of all the Banks . Claiming that the workmen have produceud their own certificates it is statedby the management that the list of villages where the border allowance is being paid has been prepared wrongly . The sponsoring Bank i.e J and K Bank is also following those guidelines with regard to the payment of SAA . Even otherwise the places mentioned within District Kathua and Jammu except Khaur and Planwala do not qualify for payment of SAA. They have further claimed that terms and conditions of service as applicable to J & K Bank, are not the same in other Banks . Regarding the contents of paras 6, 7 and 8 , the contents of which are denied by the Management it is stated by them that the Basic requirement is the existence of particular place within the specified distance from the Actual Line Control and not the International Borders . The Management has also relied upon the judgements of J &K High Court (Supra) decided on 29th July, 1999 and stated that the claim made is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
Before we approach to examine the documents produced by the parties it would be useful to keep in mind what the representative of the workman stated on oath . He proved his affidavit WW 1 and stated that he has not been able to get hold of any proof to claim that the Central Bank of India, R. S. Pura is paying SAA to its employees . Admitting the applicability of Bi-Partite Settlements and Shastri Award, it is stated by him that the workmen are also governed by the service rules of the Bank. He admitted that J & K is not paying SAA to its employees and that J&K Bank is the sponsoring Bank of the Management Bank . The Management produced their Chairman- cum- Managing Director , who proved his affidavits Exhibit MW I and stated that the documents placed on record by him and exhibited as MW 1/1 to MW 1/15 are correct. The workmen were given chance tocross cxamine him , but they did not put any question to him.
It is the admitted case of the parties that some of the employees of the management Bank approached the Hon'ble High Court of J& K, by a writ registered as SWP No. 319 , which was decided of 29th July, 1999 . Hon'ble High Court held that as per the certificate issued by the Divisional Commissioner , Jammu the petitioners were not working at places within 8 kms from the line of actual control and on those places even the govt . of J & K was not paying such an allowance to its employees . The Court categorically stated that Jammu District do not fall in the area where the special allowance was paid to the employees . His lordship further noted 3916GI/06-24
10883
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
that in a meeting with the RBI the Chairman of the Management Bank stated that he has withdrawn the allowance which was being paid to its employees . Thus it is clear that neither the State Govt . nor the sponsoring Bank of the Management Bank was paying SAA to its employees at the places where the workmen were posted. In view of the award of the National Industrial Tribunal , the Rural Bank employees could be entitled to the benefits which were paid to the employees of the sponsoringBank i.e J & K Bank and not otherwise . The petitioners have failed to show that the J & K Bank was paying SAA to its employees at the places where the petitioners were working or any of the member of their association and employee of the Management Bank was working. On no account the workmen can claim that they are entitled for SAA. The witness of the workmen admitted that he has not been able to collect any evidence to show that the other Banks were paying SAA to its employees in the areas where the members of the petitioner's Union were working . Even if the workmen could find such an evidence , in my opinion , that could not give any reason to the workman to claim SAA on thatspot for the simple reasons that in view of the award of National Industrial Tribunal they were at the best entitled to the benefits which the employees, of their sponsoring Bank were getting and nothing less nothing more.
In view of the discussion made above the reference isanswered against the workman holding that the workmen ofJammu Rural Bank have failed to show that they are entitled to SAA at places claimed by them since their sponsoring was also not paying the SAA to its employees at those places . The reference is answered against them. 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 , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर, 2006
कर.आ. 5051.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 701/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/347/97- आई आर (बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 5th December, 2006
S.O. 5051. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 701/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - 11 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in 10884
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
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 4-12-2006.
[No. L- 12012/347/97 - IR (B- I) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH
SHRI KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer Case No. I.D. No. 701/2005 .
Registered on 25-8-2005
Date ofDecision 6-11-2006
Rajinder Kumar
C/o Shri H. C Arora , House No. 2299 , Sector-44-C,
[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)] the punishment based thereon was bad besides being disproportionate to the alleged mis-conduct . The proceedings were held in violation of the principles of natural justice and the certified standing orders , therefore, the punishment awarded to the workman may be quashed and he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits including continuity in service . It is in these circumstances that the question of fairness of inquiry has been taken up for consideration.
I have gone through the file and have also considered the submissions made by the parties.
...Petitioner
Chandigarh
Versus
The Regional Manager - I (B) ,
State Bank of Patiala ,
...Respondent
Regional Office - I , Bhatinda
APPEARANCE
For the Workman : Shri H.C. Arora & Others Advocate
For the Management Mr. N.K. Zakhami Advocate
AWARD
The following reference was received from the Government of India vide their No. L- 12012/347/97 - IR (B -I) dated 10th August, 1998 :-
"Whether the action of the Regional Manager - I (B), State Bank of Patiala, Bhatinda in awarding punishment of dismissal from services w.e.f. 22-9-94 to Shri Rajinder Kumar is just and legal . If not, to what relief he is entitled and from what date ? " After the notice of the reference was received by the parties they appeared through their Counsel. The workman filed his Claim Petition and the management reply thereto. The workman then filed the rejoinder and also his affidavit. The Management also filed the affidavit of their witness Dev Raj Sharma , Branch Manager . They also placed on record the photo copies of the charge sheet, finding of the inquiry besides the copy of the appeal filed by the workman and that of order of Zonal Officer . They also placed on record the photo copies of inquiry proceedings . Since the Management had taken the plea that it was a case of Departmental Inquiry held against the workman under the statutory standing orders , therefore , the case may be decided on the basis of the inquiry proceedings . On the other hand , the workman alleged that the Management had not held a fair and proper inquiry in the matter , therefore, Before I approach to examine the claim of the workman , it would be useful to recount, in brief, the facts leading to the present controversy . As per record the workman was charge sheeted on 22nd September, 1993 , when he was posted as Deputy Head Cashier in Budhlada Branch of the Management Bank, with the allegation that anamount ofRs . 52,200 was found short in his cash balance on 10th June , 1993, which he had embezzled for his advantage. It was further alleged that he had left the Branch alongwith his brother at 10.30 A.M. and paid to him Rs. 30,000 Besides he paid Rs . 13,000 to the persons named in the charge sheet, from the cash of the Management Bank and thereby embezzled an amount of Rs.52,200 . The workman denied the allegation by his reply dated 5th Sep. , 1994. The Disciplinary Authority examined the reply and didnot feel satisfied with the reply filed by them . Therefore , it decided to hold an inquiry against the workman . The Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri K.G Verma as Inquiry Officer and Shri K.K Mittal as the Presenting Officer. The workman appeared in the inquiry alongwith Ashwani Sharma, his defence representative and after the conclusions of the inquiry, the: inquiry officer found the charges leveled against the workman proved . The Disciplinary Authority examined the inquiry report and proposed the imposition ofpenalty ofdismissal from service on the workman and asked him to show cause as to why the proposed penalty be not imposed . The workman submitted the reply to the show cause notice and after examining the same the Disciplinary Authority did not feel satisfied with the reply and imposed the penalty of dismissal fromservice onthe workman . The workman filed the appeal before the Zonal Manager , who , after due consideration of submissions made by the workman and after the perusal of the record did not find the appeal worthy of any merit and dismissed the same .
It isthe admitted case of the parties that in this case the services ofthe workman were terminated after holding adepartmental inquiry. Domestic inquiry in Industrial cases has required great significance and Industrial adjudication attaches considerable importance to such inquiries . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported as ( 1963 ) 2LLJ 452 and (1965) 2LLJ 102, has acknowledged the importance of the Departmental Inquiry . Therefore , the importance of the Departmental Inquiry cannot be over 10885 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9, 1928
looked . There are no two opinions that the domestic inquiry is not an empty formality, but an essential condition to the legality of the Disciplinary order . In other words before the delinquent workman can be dismissed for mis -conduct, the employer should hold a fair and regular inquiry into the mis-conduct and dismissal without holding a regular inquiry wouldbe illegality.
ofthe Management; whether he was provided with the copyofall thedocuments relied upon by the Management and was further given the permission to inspect all the documents which he desired to examine ; whether the workman was given full opportunity to produce his evidence, both documentary and oral , including his option to appear as a witness . Whether he was further given the assistance , to summon any other witness , to produce any other documents and whether the disciplinary authority was different from the Inquiry Officer and whether the workman was provided with the copy of the enquiry report and was permitted to make a representation against the findings, recorded.
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case ofG.R Vanketehswara V/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ( 1995) 1 LLJ 1011 laid down the following requirement of reasonable procedure which should be followed while holding the domestic inquiry against a delinquent official . Their Lordship laid down the following requirements:
(a) the employee shall be informed of the exact charges which he is called upon to meet;
(b) he should be given an opportunity to explain any material relied on by the Managementto prove the charges;
(c) the evidence of the management witnesses should be recorded in the presence of the de- linquent employee and he should be given an opportunityto cross examine such witnesses;
Coming to the claim of the workman , as made out by him, în his Written arguments, it is the case of the workman that the Management had prepared the inventory of the cash in the absence of the workman and he was not providedwith an opportunity to cross - examine the authors/ signatory of the inventory. If we turn to the inquiry proceedings, the workman in reply to the show cause notice admitted that there occurred a shortage of Rs . 52,200 in the counter which he was manning . The explanation given by him was that the cash was counted in his absence as he hadbecome unconscious white on duty. He further admitted that his brother Dinesh Kumar might have arranged the shortage on 19th June , 1993 , after arranging the money from friends and relatives . However , he stated nothing about his having acknowledged his presence in the inquiry proceedings on 17th May, 1994.
(d) the delinquent employee shall either be furnished with copies of the documents relied on by the management or be permitted to have adequate inspection of the documents relied on by the management;
(e) the delinquent employee should be given the opportunity toproduce relevant evidence both documentary and oral which include the right to examine self and other witnesses and to call for relevant and material documents in the custody of the employer;
(1) whenever the inquiring authority is different from disciplinary authority , the delinquent employee shall be furnished with a copy of the inquiry report and be permitted to make a presentation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the inquiry report.
Aperusal of the inquiry proceedings further show that the workman , after lunch hours stated before the inquiry officer that he admits the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 22nd Sept. , 1993. As per the notings ofthe proceedings , which are signed by the inquiry officer , the presenting officer and the authorized representative of the workman . The workman had admitted the charges voluntarily, categorically and specifically. There is nodoubt that the workman even at that time gave the detail of circumstances in which the amount was deposited by his brother, Dinesh Kumar on 19th June , 1993 . The InquiryOfficer , it seems honestly recorded the manner shownby the workman in which the money was collected andthendeposited. He further recorded the submission of the workman that he has a clean service record of mine years; and that since, the moncy has been deposited , therefore , the financial interest of the Management Bank has not been jeopardize ; and that he is young man of 30 years having served the Management with sincerity and devotion. He prayed for taking a lenient view by the Disciplinary Authority. It was in those circumstances that the inquiry officer did not feel necessary to proceed further to record the evidence in the case and concluded the. inquiry.
Keeping all these considerations in mind I proceed to examine whether the Management had held a fair and proper inquiry in the case or not . It has also to be kept in mind that this Tribunal is not sitting in appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in this case . It has only to see whether the Inquiry Officer had informed the workman about the exact charges against him , whether he was given full opportunity to explain the material produced against him by the Management, whether the evidence was recorded in his presence or at least in the presence of his representative and he got full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
It is also on record that before the confession of the workman, the inquiry officer had recorded the statements 10886
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]
the author/signatories to the inventory as both the witness examined made the statement , proving the correctness of the inquiry but the workman did not cross- examine them. The Inquiry Officer still reserved the right to cross- examination, of the workman of those two witnesses . On thedayhe wasto cross -examine them, he voluntarily made the statement admitting the charges unconditionally and it was in those circumstances that he inquiry officer concluded the proceedings .
The law is well settled that where the workman admits his guilt at any stage of the proceedings , there remains nothing more for the management to inquire against him and in that case the holding of further inquiry in the matter is a mere empty formality. A misconduct owned and admitted by a delinquent workman is an anti -thesis of violation ofprinciples of natural justice or victimization as understood in the Industrial law as the question of prejudice doesnot arise under such circumstances . In this regard the reference can be made to the judgements reported as 1986 LAB.ICILLJ , 1981 LAB.I.C557( 1967) 2LLJ 739.
of Ram Niwas and Vijay Pal Singh . These were two of the many employees of the Bank who had witnessed the preparation of the inventory of the workman's counter/ Cabin prepared by the officials of the Bank on 18th June, 1993. Shri Ram Niwas in the examination in chief stated that after lunch hours on 18th June, 1993 after he returns from lunch he found the employee proceeded against being taken outof his cabin in an unconscious state to the cabin of the Manager . The two doctors were summoned, who advised the shifting of the workman to the hospital . He admittedto be a signatory to the detail of cash counted from the cabin ofthe workman , on the orders of Bank Manager , alongwith other staff members, including Ashok Kumar , Head Cashier and S.S. Saini . He further stated that he had passed the statement exhibit P/ 5/ A/ 2 prepared by the EPA in his presence, in the Hospital . Similar statement was made by Shri Vijay Pal Singh , Assistant Manager on 18th April , 1994 when the workman was also present in the inquiry . Shri Vijay Pal Singh also proved Exhibit P/7 . It is true that the workman though was present did not cross -examine the two witnesses exarnined , by the Presenting Officer on 18th April 1994. It was done despite giving sufficient time to the workman to produce his defence representative and after waiting for him for reasonable time . The Defence representative did not turn up despite his commitment . It was in these circumstances that the examination - in-Chief of the witnesses of the Management was recorded .
Ido not find any merit in the submission of the workman that the Inquiry Officer should not have acted upon the mere confessional statement of the workman . The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as (1967) 2 LLJ 452 is answer to it . The authority referred to by the workman and reported as 1985(1) LLN 644, in the case of N.S Makwane V/s . Union of India does not hold good in the face of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of (1967) 2 LLJ 452 (Supra) . The reasons given by the workman are also flimsy and after thought . He did not allege in the appeal that his confessional statement was procured by the InquiryOfficer by promising him that no deterrent action would be taken against him by the Disciplinary Authority . He only alleged in the appeal that his statement was monitored by the Inquiry Officer . What he meant by monitoring is not shown. But in no case the Monitoring could mean procurement of confessional statement . The allegation of procurement of confessional statement was invented by the workman afterwards and for the first time inthe proceedings before this Tribunal . It is wrongto claim by the workman that he had not admitted his guilt earlier to 17th May , 1994. Then why he took steps and made his brother to deposit the short cash by arranging the same from friends , relatives and other sources like the Financer . By his conduct also he admitted the shortage of Bank's cashand failedto explain the same.
The workman then claimed that he was administered poisonby somebody due to which he become conscious and hospitalized. There has come no evidence on record that the allegation of poisoning was referred to the police and what was the result thereof. It is true that the cash was counted in the absence of the workman , but not by one or two person but a number of employees of the Bank. There has come no allegation that those who witnessed the It is recorded in the proceedings that on 17th May, 1994 the EPA ( Employee proceeded against) claimed himself to be a lay man , not conversant with the procedure of Inquiry and he was forced to sit in the inquiry on 18th April, 1994. He lodged his protest against the proceedings of that day. The Inquiry Officer however recorded that the workman was not forced to sit in the inquiry proceedings on the allegedday rather it was with his consent that the examination chief of the witnesses was recorded and the right of cross -examination was reserved for the defence . The EPA was provided with the copy of Exhibit P/4, produced by the Presenting Officer . He was also provided with the documents he desired and referred to in the proceedings of 22nd Feb. , 1994. Thereafter the proceedings were adjourned till after the lunch break. It is already recorded that after the lunch break the workman alongwith his defence representative was present in the proceedings and it was then that he made the confessional statement , by which he admitted all the charge framed against him on 22nd Sept. , 1992 without any reservation . What sought of statement he made and what was his prayer was also recorded by the Inquiry Officer and to my mind very honestly, therefore, I do not find any merit in the submission of the workman that the inventory made by the official of the management was defective and , therefore, should not have been relied upon by the Inquiry Officer in holding him guilty. It is also incorrect to suggest that the workman was not provided with the opportunity to cross-examine [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
inventory of cash being prepared had played mischief or that the shortage of the cash was in the handling of the cash by the workman . The workman has only alleged that he was pressurized with the help of police to make good 'the shortage but he has produced no evidence in the inquiry in that regard. How can it be accepted that nobody had witnessed the pressure being exercised upon the workman for depositing the short cash . If none else atleast his brother could state so , but the workman did not allege this in his reply to the charge or during the inquiry proceedings and now this stand is not available allowed to him nor can be accepted for want of evidence .
The next question which comes for consideration is the imposition of the punishment on the workman. It has been proved in the inquiry that a shortage of Rs . 52,200/- was detected in the cash of the workman which he deposited later on thereby it is proved that the workman could not show as to where that money of the Bank had gone. In the absence of that it has to be taken that it was the workman who had misappropriated that money and then deposited the same. In such circumstances how an employee who plays with the trust of the depositors and that of the Management can be retained in service . In my opinion the punishment awarded was well deserved by the workman and it cannot be claimed to be disproportionate to the mis- conduct alleged and proved against the workman .
After going through the file carefully and after due consideration of the submissions made by the parties I am of the opinion that the action of the Regional Manager- I (B), State Bank of Patiala in awarding the punishment of dismissal w.e.f. 22-9-1994 to Shri Rajinder Kumar , is just and legal , therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed and the reference is answered accordingly. 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, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5052.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 444/2 के 5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/2/2001- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006 S.O. 5052. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central
10887
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.444/ 2K5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court- II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of State Bank of India and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No. L-12012/2/2001 - IR (B-I)]
AJAYA KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH PresidingOfficer : SHRI KULDIP SINGH
CASE NO . L.D. NO . 444/2K5 .
Registered on 19-8-2005
Date ofDecision 21-11-2006.
Shri Suresh Kumar
C/o Shri J.N. Kapoor , 33-34, Rajouri Garden New Delhi .
...Petitioner Versus
The DeputyGeneral Manager ,
State Bank of India, ZonalOffice Sector-8-C,
Chandigarh.
...Respondent
APPEARANCE
For the Workman : Shri J.N. Kapoor, AR For the Management : Sh. V.K. Sharma , AR
AWARD
The Government of India vide their order No. L- 12012/ 2/2001- IR (B -I ) dated 28th /30th March, 2001 referred for adjudication by this Tribunal the following dispute :-
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in terminating the service of Suresh Kumar w.e.f. 10th June, 1990 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives . The workman filed his Claim Petition and the management their reply thereto . The workman filed his affidavit and in rebuttal the Management filed the affidavit of Shri N.K. Girotra , Deputy Manager . They also placed on record photo copy of the absorption of temporary employees Scheme besides photo copies of the memorandum dated 9th April , 1991. The Management also placed on file the affidavit of Shri Sudhir Arora, another Deputy Manager . The workman as well as Shri N.K. Girotra came in the witness box to prove their affidavits and to answer the questions raised by the opposite side with regard to the dispute . The parties have also submitted written arguments duly supported by some 10888
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] judgements of the Supreme Court, High Court of Punjab and Haryana ; and that of the Industrial Tribunal , Chandigarh .
fixed sum of Rs.20 per charge , therefore , he cannot claim the payment of less wages to him . Their further case is tinat as a result of settlement between the Bank and Staff Federation an advertisement was issued in the newspapers in response to which applications were received fromex- Casual Labour/temporary employees who had worked from 1st July , 1975 to 14th August , 1991 , for consideration of their permanent absorption in the Bank. The petitioner did not apply for the consideration of his case like others and that gave rise to the presumption that the workman was not eligible for the post . Now he cannot raise that claim. They also disputed that the Management had engaged a person named Baljit as is claimed by the workman. Contesting the claim of the workman that the Management had violated the provisions of Section 25 -H of the I.D Act, 1947 it is stated by them that since the workman had not applied for his absorption on permanent basis in the Bank, therefore , his case was not considered . Denying other claims made by the workman it is stated by the Management that the action of the Management was not as a result of unfair labour practice or victimization , as the workman himself did not come forward to make a claim so his case was not considered by the management . Therefore , he is not entitled to any relief and his claim is required to be rejected.
The claim of the workman , as made out by him in the statement of claim , is that he was appointed as temporary messenger on 9th Feb. , 1990 against a regular and permanent vacancy at G.T. Road Panipat Branch of the Bank ; that he served the Management upto 10th June , 1990, when at the close ofbusiness on that day, his services were terminated orally without any charge sheet or an inquiry . During his engagement he was not paid minimum wages . The Management also violated the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act by recruiting fresh hands in the same Branch such as Hanumant and others , whereas they did not provide opportunity to the workman to serve nor they regularized his services although he made repeated representations and there were settlements entered into between the management Bank and the SB1 , Staff Federation . Accordingto the Bi -partite settlements dated 27thOctober , 1988 and 9th Jan. , 1990 , a workman became cligible for permanent appointment after putting 30 days temporary service in a Calendar year from 1st July, 1975 to 14th August , 1991. The workman had fulfilled the requirement but he was never summoned for interview by the managenient whereas they absorbed all the temporary employees /daily wagers. His representation to the Branch Manager, AGM and DGM , Chandigarh also did not yield anyresult . Naming M/s . Hanumat, Baljit, Ram Niwas , Vijay Kumar and Ram Behl as daily wagers who were engaged after the termination of services of the workman and absorved permanently, but the workman , who also fell in that category was denied the appointment with Malafide . The manageinent did not consider the case of the workman evenwhen the ALC suggested the Management to absorb the workmanı , during the conciliation proceedings ; hence the reference . The workman in the end has prayed for declaring the action of the Management unjustified and for a directions to reinstate him in service and pay him back wages.
The workman appeared as a witness and proved his affidavit exhibit W1 as correct. In cross examination he admitted that the Management had not given him any appointment letter . He further admitted that he had made an application for appointment but he does not possess a copythereof; and that he had worked for the Management for 200 days . On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workman had applied for absorption on permanent basis in the Management Bank. It is only his mere claim , in the affidavit , that the Management did not consider his case for permanent absorption in the Bank although he was eligible ; and that the Management had permanently absorbed a number of person similarly placed like the workman, but did not consider the case of the workman .
The claim of the workman has opposed by the management . According to them the claim made is highly belated besides the petitioner does not fall in the category ofworkman as he was not appointed by the management . He had only served the Management on 82 occasions between February to June 1990 as Casual Labour , as and when required . There was never an occasion for the Management to terminate his services .
On merit it is claimed by the Management that the workman was never appointed by them. He was , however engaged on adhoc basis on different dates , on a payment ofRs.20 per job from 1st Feb. , to 10th June , 1990 , as and when required exigency. According to them since the workman was not appointed by the management, therefore, there was no necessity to charge sheet him or to hold an inquiry against him. As the workman was engaged on a
Onrecord there is a copy of the settlement dated 17th July, 1996 which was made between the SBI and the workers through all India State Bank of employees Staff Union. According to this settlement, a chance was to be given to eligible temporary /daily wage casual employee , in the subordinate cadre for being considered for permanent employment in the Bank. In view of the settlement , a panel was to be prepared of daily wager , Casual employees for consideration against the vacancies arisen upto December , 1994. They were to be considered for vacancies arising from Jan. , 1995 to December , 1996. The panel was to lapse afterDecember, 1996. However by subsequent conciliation proceedings, the life of the panel was extended upto March , 1997. The panel was to be drawn of temporary employees ; daily wager , casual labourers on circle to circle basis . It was further decided to fill up all the vacancies till [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
31st March , 1997. As regards the Chandigarh Circle , the Panel was to be prepared with Delhi Circle, so as to fill up 25% ofthe vacancies in that circle , provided the workmen agreed to it and the remaining vacancies were to be filled up by converting the eligible non messengeral staff as messenger or by open recruitment . The management then issued instructions for inviting applications and also prescribed a proforma for applying for the post . The workman has neither produced any proof nor claimed that he had applied for absorption on a prescribed proforma. He only claims that he had made numerous representations for his regularization but what could be the value of such representations if the same were not made at the relevant time when the Management had the occasion to consider his case alongwith the other candidates . Thus I do not find any evidence on record to show that the workman had applied for consideration of his case for permanent employment on prescribed proforma at a relevant . He has also failed to show that no such advertisement was issued by the Management . He also did not get the record of the Management summoned to show that he had applied for the post but was not called for an interview. Nothing could prevent theworkman from summoning the personto whom he had handed over his application including the Branch Manager who was posted in the said Branch . The claim of theworkman isthat he had applied , but was not called for interview is afterthought , belated and not supported by any evidence . He has slept over his claim for years together. So, he cannot now raise that claim .
It is also to be noted here that all along the case of the workman is that he was not considered for empanelment whereas the reference received from the appropriate govt . isto find out whether the termination of the services of the workman by the management on 10th June , 1990 was just and legal . The workman has failed to show as to how his disengagement was a termination and what the management wasrequired to do before his disengagement from service . The law is settled that a workman does not enjoy any protection to the Industrial Dispute Act so long he does not put in 240 days continuous service , 12 months preceding the date of his disengagement. It is admitted by the workman that he had put in about 100 days service , beforethe management had disengaged him. Hon ' ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Karnal Central Cooperative Bank ltd . V/s Presiding Officer and others reported as 1994 PLR, 310 has held that, an Industrial worker ifdoes not complete 240 days of service till the date of his disengagement , has no Industrial right under the Industrial Dispute Act . In the present case the workman has failed to show that the management had violated the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Dispute Act, therefore , his termination was bad in law.
Lookingto the facts and circumstances of this case , from all angles , I am of the opinion that the workman has utterly failed to show that the termination of his services
10889
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30; 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
w.e.f. Ioth June, 1990 was not just and legal , therefore , he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him. 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, Presding Officer नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5053. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिणी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-41012/195/95- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December , 2006 S.O. 5053. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 4-12-2006.
[No. L-41012/195/95 - IR (B-I)) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT :
Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B., PresidingOfficer (Monday the 27th day of November , 2006)
L.D. No. 65/2006. (I.D. 7/1997 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam) Workman/Union , D.Elcee(Expired) C/oGeneral Secretary , D.R.C.L.U. EdappallyNorth , Kochi -24.
Addl . Claimant impleaded: Smt.Gracy
Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar Management
The Dy. Chief Engineer , (Construction) Southern Railway, Podannur, Adv. Shri P.N.M. Najeebkhan 10890
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] AWARD
This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 for adjudication . The reference is :
"Whether the action of the management of Dy . Chief Engineer ( Cons .) , S. Rly . Podannur in retrenching the workman Smt . D. Elcee Casual Labour on 19-6-77 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "
I.D. Act while terminating the service of the worker . The Industrial Dispute is raised after a lapse of 22 years after termination of service and it is time-barred . The Railway is not preserving records later than 10 years . On 2-3-1987 the Railway had invited applications from retrenched casual labourers for including their names in the live register maintained by the Railway for the purpose of engaging casual labourers from among the persons enrolled in the live register. Wide publicity was also given . The worker did not avail this opportunity.
2. Pending the reference the claimant D. Elcee died. Her legal heir was impleaded as additional claimant.
5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration:
(1) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute?
(2) Is the claim barred by limitation or has become stale?
(3) Is the termination legal?
(4) Reliefs.
The evidence consists of the documentary evidence ofExts . W1 & W1 (a) on the side of worker and Exts . Ml & M2 on the side of management . No oral evidence was adduced.
6. Point No. (1 ) :
3. As per the claim statement of the deceased claimant she was working under the Depot Store Keeper , Construction , Southern Railway, Podannur from 12-9-1970 to 19-6-1977 . She was terminated on 20-6-1977 all of a sudden . She was not given a notice of termination. She had attained temporary status and hence was entitled for CPC scale of pay . However the Divisional Personnel Officer had denied the same . From 16-8-1971 the worker is entitled to get CPC scale of pay and temporary status. Since the Railway failedto comply with the procedure for retrenchrnent under Railway Establishment Manual , Chapter 23 , Rule 2302 ( i) and provisions of J.D. Act , the claimant is entitled to get back wages and all other benefits . Many of the juniors of the worker are continuing in service. The termination of service is in violation of S-25 (H) of 1.D. Act . Therefore the worker is entitled to be reinstated with all benefits.
The reference was made originally to State Labour Court, Ernakulam and later transferred to this Court. The worker Smt. Elcee was working at Podannur of Coimbatore District at the time of termination of service . Therefore it is contended by the management that this court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute . Accordingto the management the reference should have been sent to the LabourCourt at Coimbatore .
4. The Railway in its written statement contends that the claimant is not a workman within the meaning of S-2 (S) of 1.D. Act : The worker had not raised any dispute before the management and refused by management in order to raise any industrial dispute. The dispute is stale and has been raised after a very long period . The cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu and this court has no territorial jurisdiction . The worker has to produce the original Service Card to prove that she has worked continuously and completed six months' service in order to get temporary status . The worker was engaged as casual labourer in project work . The benefit of granting temporary status to casual labourers in Railway was introduced w.e.f. 1-1-1981 based on the decision of Hon ' ble Supreme Court in the case of Indrapal Yadav & Ors . v/s . Union of India . The worker was paid Rs.58 ps.50 to wards retrenchment compensation at the time of termination . None of the project workers were granted temporary status prior to 1-1-1981 and scale rate of wages before 1-6-1974 . The worker was retrenched on 29-6-1976. The worker is not entitled to any relief. An additional written statement was also filed stating thatthe worker Smt . D. Elcee had expired on 8-6-1999 and her daughter Smt. D. Gracy was impleaded . The worker was given retrenchment compensation of Rs . 58 ps.50 on 19-6-1976. This is seen from the retrenchment compensation Register . Hence there is no violation of any provisions of
7. There is no doubt that Smt. Elcee was working at Podannur which is in Coimbatore District . However her address shown in the reference as well as in the claim statement is Smt. D. Elcee , C/ o General Secretary, D.R.C.L.U. , Edappally North, Cochin - 24. The address of management is that of Podallur, Madras -3 . The only reason why the reference was sent to Labour Court , Ernakulam was because the worker had shown her address as Edappally , Cochin -24 . However, in the claim statement , at the end of page 2, while verifying the contents of the claim statement , the address ofworker is described as " Smt . D. Elcee , aged 42 years , D/o Devasy , residing at Podannur" . In 1999 the worker died and her daughter Smt . Gracy was impleaded in 2002 . In the Affidavit of Smt. Gracy the address shown is Gracy, C/o Elcee, aged 36 years residing at Door No.48, Panchayat Office Road, Podannur , Coimbatore District . This Affidavit is filed in M.P. 107/2001 for the purpose of impleading her as additional claimant . Thus the address of the worker reveals that at the time of termination she was residing at CoimbatoreDistrict. Ext. W1 & W1 ( a) are service cards of the worker which show that she was working under Depot Store Keeper , Construction , S. Rly . , Podannur . Thus 10891 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजबल : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
11. The sum and substance of the decision referred above is that the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under I.D. Act. However, considering the facts and circumstances of each case the court has to decide whether the industrial dispute has become too old or stale for consideration and whether such adjudication would revive the issue which has become final already.
the worker was residing at Podannur and was working in the same place. Naturally , the reference could have been sent to a court at Coimbatore . But the dispute being one referred by the Central Government it could be sent to any court in India. Since the address of worker shown while raising the industrial dispute before Conciliation Officer must have been the address of Kochi the reference was sent to this court . At any rate , this court does not lose jurisdiction because the party was residing and working outside Kochi . Point is answered accordingly.
8. Point No. (2) :
The worker joined the service of Railway as casual labourer on 12-9-1970. She worked till 19-6-1977 in Railway under Depot Store Keeper , Construction , S. Rly. , Podannur. On 19-6-1977 her service was dispensed with . A reference was made on 4-3-1997 after a period of 20 years . According tothe management Railway the claim has become stale and barred by limitation . However , the learned counsel for the worker relied on the decision reported in Ajaib Singh v . Sirhind Co-op . M.P.S.S. Ltd. 1999 (2) L.L.N. 674 = ( 1999) 6 SCC 82, wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings under I.D. Act and Art. 137 has no application. It is further observed that what is not proved by the Legislature the court cannot substitute . But it is to be noted that there is an observation in paragraph 10 of the judgment that the management has to prove the real prejudice caused bythe delay in raising the dispute and a mere plea of delay in the statement of the management is not enough . It is relevant to note the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Prahlad Singh 2000 (4) L.L.N. 1182 the Industrial Tribunal refused to grant relief to an employee whose service was terminated and who had raised an industrial dispute after 13 years . The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraph 11 of the judgment that depending upon the facts and circumstances ofcach case relief can be declined on the ground of delay and latches . However no observation was made with regard to application of Limitation Act in the judgment .
12. It is to be noted that nowhere in the claim statement the worker explains the delay in raising the industrial dispute. The dispute was raised 20 years after she was terminated from service. Nobody has entered the boxto explain the reason for the delay. Whereas the Railway has specifically pleaded in their written statement that the long delay has put the Railway in difficulty in tracing out recordsto defend the case effectively. The Railway has to show first that she was not working in construction wing ascontended by the worker but only in the project wing. The service conditions in both the wings differed prior to 1-1-1981 as can be seen from the pleadings in the written statement. Then the Railway has to find out the records which show the manner in which the worker was terminated and whether she was given compensation , etc. According to the Railway it is bound to maintain records only up to a period of 10 years . Since the case on hand is of a dispute 20 years back, the Railway will find it difficult to trace out and produce records to substantiate their contention . Therefore the delay has caused prejudice to the Railway. The worker has not been able to show that she had made any representation to the Railway at any point of time for reinstatement until the reference was made . According to the Railway they had invited applications from retrenched casual labourers for preparing a live register of casual labourers for the purpose of calling them for work as and when required . But the worker had not responded and availed the opportunity . No records are produced to show anyrepresentation made either to the management or before any authority to get her grievance redressed prior to the reference . Thus there is inexplicable and inordinate delay inthis case which has caused real prejudice to the Railway inmeeting the contentions of the worker . Therefore I find that the delay is inordinate and unexplained and hence has become stale .
13. Point No.(3) :
10. The learned counsel for the management relied on the decision in Nedungadi Bank Ltd " v. Κ.Ρ. Madhavankutty & Ors . 2000-1.L.L.J . 561. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it is observed that though law does not prescribe anytime limit for appropriate Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under section -10 of I.D.Act it does not mean that it can do so at, any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled . The power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rationale manner .As to when a dispute can be said tobe stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case . It is further observed with reference to the decided case that once the matter has become final it is rather incongruous to make a reference under section - 10 of the Act.
According to the worker , she was working in the construction wing ( open line) of S. Railway as casual labourer. She worked continuously for more than 180 days to acquire the temporary status . Once she acquired temporary status, she was entitled to get scale wages . Exts . W1 & W1 ( a) are the service cards of the worker . That shows that she was working continuously without any break for a period of one year . At any rate, from 12-9-1970 to16-3-1971 there was no break in her service and by that timeshehad completed service of six months and naturally she was entitledto temporary status and scale wages . But according to the Railway she was working in project wing 3916 G1/06-25 10892
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]
ofthe same type for more than six months without a break will be treated as temporary after the expiry of the six months of continuous employment .
(ii) Labour on projects , irrespective of duration, except those transferred from other temporary or permanent employment.
(iii) Seasonal labour who are sanctioned for specific works of less than six months duration . If such labour is shifted from one work to another of the same type , e.g. relaying and the total continuous period of such work at any one time is more than six months duration, they should be treated as temporary after the expiry of six months of continuous employment . For the purpose of termination and the eligibility of labour to be treated as the criterion should be the period of continuous work put in by each individual labour on the same type of work and not the period put in collection by any particular gang or group of labourers ."
Casual labour who is engaged for more than six months without a break is treated as temporary . Subsequently the period of six months was reduced to 4 months which is made mention in the later edition of the Manual (1990). It is observed in Robert D'Souza's case referred supra in paragraph 11 as follows:
of the Railway and not in construction wing . The status of the casual labourers in these two wings is different . The project workers were granted temporary status only w.e.f. 1-1-1981 and not prior to that . This was as per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderpal Yadav and Ors . V.Union of India ( 1985) 2 SCC 648. So also , the casual workers in the project were entitled for scale wages only on completion of continuous service for six months on or after 1-1-1974 . However , the Railway has nowhere stated what kind of project work she was engaged . There is only a general statement that she was engaged in the project work . The difference between project work and construction work are mentioned in L. Robert D'Souza v. Ex. Engr . S. Rly. 1982 I - L.L.J . 330 = AIR 1982 SC 854. In paragraph 20 of the judgement it is observed that every construction work does not imply project . Project is co- related to Plan Projects in which the workman is treated as work-charged. A construction unit is a regular unit all over the Indian Railways . It is a permanent unit and cannot be equated to project . Since a casual employee was working in the construction wing and since the project work is treated differently for the purpose of service benefits it is essential for the Railway to specify clearly the unit in which the worker was engaged or the project in which the worker was engaged . The workers in the construction wing aré engaged for routine work of repair and maintenance of the existing railway lines while the project workers are engaged for particular projects like laying new lines and doubling of lines , etc. In the absence of any pleading with regard to the specific project in which the worker was employed the contention of the management cannot be accepted. The service cards prepared and signed by the Railway show that she was working under Depot Store Keeper of the Construction Wing . Therefore she was a casual labourer of the construction wing who was entitled to temporary status on completion of 180 days and scale wages even prior to Inderpal Yadav case . Rule 2501 of Chapter XXV of Railway Establishment Manual (2nd Edition) , 1968 deals with the definition of casual labour :
"2501. Definition :
" It is thus abundantly clear that if a person belonging to the category of casual labour employed in construction work other than work - charged projects renders six months ' continuous service without a break, by the operation of statutory rule the person would be treated as temporary railway servant after the expiry of six months of continuous employment . It is equally true of even seasonal labour . Once the person acquired the status of temporary railway servant by operation of law , the conditions of his service would be governed as set out in Chapter XXIII . "
( a) Casual Labour refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent, sporadic or extends over short periods . Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source . It is not liable to transfer , and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour .
Thus the worker who was in service from 12-9-1970 to 19-6-1977 was definitely entitled to temporary status as she was in the construction wing (open line ) after completing six months continuous service and consequently was eligible for scale wages .
(b) The casual labour on railways should be employed only in the following types of cases , namely:
14. That is not the main question to be decided in this case . The worker is contending that she was illegally terminated without notice or compensation . According to the Railway she was given compensation in lieu of notice on the same day of termination of service . It is pleaded that Rs.58 ps . 50 was given as compensation u/s - 25F of 1.D.
(i) Staff paid from contingencies except those retained for more than six months continuously : - Such of those persons who continue to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
Act on 19-6-1976 , on which date her service was terminated. Though the worker does not agree that she has received the compensation, even the legal representative Smt. Gracy has not mounted the box to deny the payment. The worker wassleeping over the matter for a long period of 20 years . The court cannot come to the rescue of a person in slumber. No records would be available with the Railwayto settle the dispute . The Railway having taken a specific contention in their pleading that by way of compensation Rs . 58 ps . 50 was given on the same day of termination of service , it was for the worker or her representative to lead at least oral evidence to deny the payment. In the absence of any such cvidence on the part of the worker the general denial that no notice or compensation was given is not sufficient to substantiate worker's contention . Whatever is recorded in the service card at the time of termination of service as "settled" is about the wage settlement and not concerning compensation U/s - 25 F of I.D. Act . The service card shows that whenever there was a break in service the wages were ' settled by the management and recorded in the Service Book .Had compensation paid U / s-25F was meant by noting "scttled" in the service card, the amount of compensation too would have been recorded in the service card . But no such payment is mentioned in the service cards Exts . WI & WI ( a) . In the light of the specific plea of Railway in their written statement it has to be said that retrenchment compensation was given at the time of retrenchment. Hence there is no illegality in termination.
15. Point No. (4):
In the light of the above findings and in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay in raising the dispute, the worker is not entitled to get any relief.
16. In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management in retrenching the worker Smt . D. Elcce on 19-6-1977, is legal and justified and the worker is not entitled to any relief. No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 27th day ofNovember, 2006
P, L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX
Nil. Witness for the Union :
Witness for the Management : Nil .
Exhibits for the Workman:
WI-Casual Labour Service Card from 12-9-1970 to 6-5-1974
Wl ( a) Casual Labour Service Card from 2-3-1976 to 19-6-1977
Exhibits for theManagement :
MI -Copy of Railway Board's letter No.PO.72/ RLT/69-3 dated 12-6-1974
10893
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौव 9 , 1928
M2 -Copy of Railway Board's letter No.E (NG) II/84/CL-41 dated 11-9-1986
नई दिल्ली, 5 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5054. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , कोल्हापुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 80/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/173/1998- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]
राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th December, 2006 S.O. 5054. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/1999) of the Labour Court, Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofBank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 5-12-2006.
[No. L- 12012/173/ 1998 - IR (B -II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S.M. BHOSALE, PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AT, KOLHAPUR Reference (IDA) No. 80/1999
BETWEEN :
..FirstParty The Chief Regional Manager , Bank of India, Regional Office, MM Chambers , 2101 /26-27, Laxminagar, Pune-Bangalore Road, Kolhapur And
TheGeneral Secretary, Bank of India Workers ' Orgn . 185, Shaniwar Peth , Pune.
..Second Party
AWARD
This is a reference sent by Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India, New Delhi for adjudication of industrial dispute in terms whether action of the first party in terminating services of Shri Vijay Sakharam Pardhi , a sweeper w.e.f. July- 1994 is legal and justified and, if not, to what relief said workman is entitled ?
2. After receipts of reference , notices were sent to both parties . Accordingly both parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings and the matter was posted for recording evidence . However , it appears from the record thatsecond party has not taken further steps to record his evidence and proceed with the matter . Thus , it appears [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10894
APPEARANCE
:
Forthe Workman
Mr. Shailendra Sharma and AjayNaraAR.
Shri . P.S Jaswal Advocate .
FortheManagement :
AWARD
from the record that even though sufficient opportunity is given, the second party is not interested in proceeding further with his claim . There is no evidence on record to adjudicate the dispute . The present reference is , therefore , liable to be answered in the negative and disposed of . Accordingly the reference stands answered in the negative and disposed of accordingly.
Kolhapur.
Date : 18-11-2006 S.M. BHOSALE, Presiding Officer
The following reference received fromGovt. of India on 15th April, 2004 vide their number L -42012/ 123/2003- IR(C-II)) dated 31st March, 2004 is under the consideration ofthis Tribunal :
नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर, 2006
"Whether the action of the Management of Regional Institute of Co -operative Management, Chandigarh interminating the services of Shri Ram Baran , Mali w.e.f. 30th June, 2002 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
का.आ. 5055.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रीजनल इन्स्टीटयूट ऑफ को- ओपरेटिव मैनेजमेन्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 272/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42012/123/2003- आई. आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी
On getting notice of the reference from the Tribunal the parties appeared through their Counsel . The workman filedhis claim statement and the reapplication besides his own affidavit to which the Management filed the reply and also the affidavit of their Regional Director V. K. Pandey . They also placed on record the photo copies of the documents and proved the same through their witness .
New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006
S.O. 5055. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governunent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 272/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No. - 2 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of Regional Institute of Co - operative Management, and their workman receivedby the Central Government on 7-12-2006.
[No. L-42012/ 123/2003 - IR (C - II) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Offieer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II CHANDIGARH
The claim of the workman is that he was appointed asMali by the Management on 9th July, 1999 on a monthly salary of Rs . 2500 pm and he worked for the Management without any break till 30th June , 2002 by which time he had served the Management for 240 days in a calendar year, at the time of termination of his services ; that the Management terminated his services without following the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 , hereinafter to be referred as " Act " . The Management retained his juniors whereas terminated his services; that on a demand notice was served by him , on the Management through the Labour Authorities , but no conciliation could be reached as the Management denied theclaim of the workman, although the workman was ready toserve the Management. The further claim of the workınan is that he is without any job since the day of his termination; and that he is entitled for reinstatement along with back wages and other consequential benefits .
SHRI KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer
Case No. 1. D. No. 272/2k5 .
Registered on 15-4-2004
Date of Decision 10-11-2006.
RAM BARAN S /O SHRI BARSATI R/ O HOUSE NO . 352, SECTOR- 9 - D , CHANDIGARH.
...PETTTONER
VERSUS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT , SECTOR- 32-C, CHANDIGARH
...RESPONDENT
The claim of the Management is that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide this reference as the Management does not fall within the ambit of the " Aet " in the light of the decision of the Govt . of India in the case of Natesah Institute of Co - operative Management, Chennai as referred in Annexure - I . Moreover , the services of the workman were not terminated by the Management . The workman had served the Management, from 1st August , 1999 to 31st Dec. , 1999 on daily wages , as Mali , but w.e.f. 1st Jan. , 2000 he started working for the Management on contract, at the rate of 2200 pm since there was no sanction of post of the Mali available in the Institute . The workman was made known about this fact and the same formed part of the contract signed by the workrnan , He 10895 भारत का राजपन: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/बौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
accepted the terms and conditions of the contract and thereafter accepted the job. After the expiry of the first term of the contract , it was extended for another year, on payment of Rs.2500/-P.M and other conditions of the engagement remained the same . The period of contract was further extended upto 30th June, 2002 on the same terins and conditions ; that the contract ended on 30th June, 2002 by afflux of time as defined by Section 2(00) (bb) of the Act, although the workman had left the job on 27th June , 2002; itself, for the reason best known to him .
TheManagement has denied this fact. According to them the workman was initially engaged by them as Mali ondailywages basis from 1-8-1999 to 31-12-1999 and he was engaged on contract for one year from 31-12-2002 on wages @ 2200/-P.M. It was specifically mentioned in the agreement that the Management does not have a post of Mali, therefore , the individual engaged on contract shall have no right of extension of contract or regularization in the Institute . The workman accepted the terms and conditionofcontract and worked accordingly . The period ofcontract was extended since the Management required the services of Mali for another year from 1-1-2001 to 31-12-2001 , but for increased wages @ 2500/ - p.m. The other condition of the contract remaifted the same . The contractwas further extended from 7-1-2001 to 31-6-2000 on the same terms and condition , under which he was working . The workman, however , left the work on 27-6- 2002 without informing the Management and for reason best known to him .
It is further the claim of the Management that they had only a strength of ten class- IV employees , eight in General Scheme and two in Industrial Scheme but due to the discontinuation of the Industrial Scheme the two post ofClass - IV employees came in reduction and thus leaving only 8 post on which the regular staff was working. There was no other post of Class - IV employee including that of the Mali with the Management . There was , therefore , no right of the workman to claim reinstatement as there was no post available . They also denied the relationship of cmployer and employee between the parties and for that reason also the demand notice was required to be rejected. On merits it is submitted by the Management that the contents of paras 1 to 4, 7, 9 to 11 are wrong and hence denied, para 5 is a matter of record. It is further stated by them that the Management had not engaged the workman on 9th July, 1999 on monthly wages of Rs.2500/- and since he was working for the Management on contract basis , the question of having worked for the Management for 240 days was of no relevance nor there was an occasion for the Management to terminate his services . The fact is that the workınan had himself left the work on 27th June , 2002, without informing the Management and for the reason best known to him. In view of that the provisions of Section 25-F were not applicable in the case. It is wrong claim of the workman that the Management had not allowed him to work rather the fact is that the workman had himself left the work which was being done on contract basis . Since the Management did not have the post of Mali, therefore, they had told to the conciliation officer that the workman cannot be taken back. The workman has no right to claim from the Management, therefore , the reference may be answered against him .
The Management has placed on record documents exhibit as MW1/2, MW1 /3 & MW 1/4 which were proved by the Management. According to MW1/2 the workman was engaged as Mali on contract from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2000 on the consolidated salary of Rs . 2200/- . By this document he was made to know that his engagement was temporary and shall not be extended since there was no sanctioned post of Mali with the Management . He was further made to know that except the wages agreed to on the workman shall not be entitled for any other benefit. This letter was signed by the workman on 10-7-2000 . According to document MW 1/3, which is also signed by the workman, the Management had given fresh contract to the workman to work as a Mali on a consolidated wages of Rs . 2500/-from 1-11-2001 to 31-12-2001 . This contract was also given on the same terms and conditions as were incorporated in MW 1/2 . The nature of the jobto be performed by the contractor was also the same . By MW 1/4 , the contracts of Jagdish Partap and Pala Ram besides the workman was extended for 6 months from 1-1-2002 to 31-6-2002 . This extension order is signed by the Jagdish Partap and Pala Ram but not by the workman . However, the workman neither in his Claim Petition nor in his statement, recorded in the Tribunal, claim that there was no such extension of contract in his favour . He denied his signature on Mark "A " and " B " on the ground of that being photocopies and he stated nothing about cxhibit MWI/4 . On the other hand, he claimed that he had worked for the Management from 31-6-2002 . He further admitted that in the month of July 2002 , he was told by the contractor that his services with the Management are over but he had protested against that to the Director he denied that he had served. the Management on contract upto April 2003. Onrecord I do not find any evidence except the statement of the workman that he had served the Management as a daily wager . About the amount of wages which the workman claims to be his salary , the workman stated that There is a basic dispute between the parties about the nature of relationship . The claim of the workman is that he had served the Management as Mali on a salary of Rs . 2500/-P.M . w.e.f. 9-7-1999 till 30-6-2002; and that the Management had terminated his services on 30-6-2002 without following the provisions of the Act , more specifically 25-F of Act, as he had put in 240 days of service 12 months proceeding the date of termination his services . TheManagement neither gave him notice of termination of his services nor paid him retrenchment compensation, therefore , his termination was bad in law.
10896
he had worked for the Management on wages @ 2200/- p.m. which were later on increased to 2500/- . The workman further claimed that the last salary , he was getting was Rs . 2700 / -but he has failed to produce any evidence in support of that . The combined reading of the evidence , placed on record , clearly suggests that the engagement of workman was initially on daily wages for the period 1stAugustto 31-12-1999 . Thereafter he was engaged as Mali for one year from 1-1-2000 to 31/12 , on a consolidated wages of Rs . 2200 and thereafter for another one year and 6 months from 1-1-2001 to 31-6-2002 . On consolidated wages of Rs . 2500 p.m. The workman failed to prove that his engagement was not contractual but a regular one and he served the Management 240 days 12 months proceeding the date of his disengagement . He could not dislodge any of the documents of the Managernent , Exhibit MW 1/2 , MW 1/3N & MW 1/4 and any nor produced any documentary or oral evidence . Thus the workman has failed to prove that his engagement was not contractual , therefore , he was entitled for protection under the Industrial . Dispute Act . As is claim by the Management , the contractual relationship of the parties ended on 30-6-2002 although they have claimed that the workman had left the work 3 lays before the date the contractual relationship was end. In view of this , the workman cannot claim the protection u / s 25 F of the Act . In this regard I get support from the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board V/s Darbara Singh, reported as (2006 ) 1 SCC 121 .
In his claim petition workman claimed that the Managerment also violated the provisions of the Act by retaining his juniors and terminating his services . However , when it came to his statement in the Tribunal , he admitted that no junior of his was retained by the Managerment . He , however claimed that one Rajesh was engaged as a Mali by the Management , but he could not produce any evidence to show in what capacity or that any such Rajesh was at all is engaged by the Management . The witness of the Management came in the witness box , but he did not put any question or suggestion to him in this regard .
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
extended for 6month up to 30-6-2002. This document does not prove the relationship of workman as a regular employee of the Management .
After the due consideration of all the evidence available on the record, I am of the opinion that workman has failed to show that he was the employee of the Management as a Mali and his services were terminated on 30-6-2002 and that the action of the Management in doing so was illegal and unjustified . The evidence available rather shows that the workman was engaged on contract on a consolidated amount and his contract ended on 30-6-2002 by afflux of time although initially he had worked ondaily wages for some time . Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him. Let a copy of this award sent to the appropriated Govt. And the file be consigned the record after due completion.
KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5056.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी. एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 746/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-23012/11/1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006 S.O. 5056. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 746/2005) of the Central Government Tribunal No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006 .
[No. L- 23012/11/ 1994- IR (C -II ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI KULDIP SINGH CASE NO . L. D. No 746/2005 .
Registered on 2-9-2005
Date of Decision 20-11-2006
The workman placed much reliance on document W4 which are the minutes of the meeting attended by the workman and the employces of the Management . In this meeting the workman besides others are shown to be present . The document however does not show in what capacity the workman was present . There is absolutely no mention in the body of the minutes as to in what capacity the workman was present so as to suggest his status in the meeting . Therefore , in my opinion the mention of name of the workman in meeting cannot prove that he was also an employee of the Management Messrs . Pala Ram and Jagdish were also shown to be present in that meeting and as stated above they were related to the Managerment by a contract as per MW1 / 4 , which was PRESIDENT : NANGAL BHAKRA MAZDOOR SANGH, NANGAL TOWNSHIP , DISTRICT ROPAR , PUNJAB . ..... PETITIONER 10897 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग 1I- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Versus
against the workmen; and that the punishment awardedto theworkman was justified or not.
CHIEF ENGINEER, BBMB , NANGAL TOWNSHIP DISTRICT ROPAR .
.....RESPONDENT
APPEARANCE
For the Workman :
Shri R. K. Singh Parmar. AR
For theManagement:
Shri Sandeep Chopra LawOfficer.
AWARD
The Government of India vide their order no . L- 23012 /11 /94 - IR(C - II) dated 1st June, 1995 referred the following matter for the consideration of this Tribunal :
"whether the action of the Management of BBMB in imposing penality of Rs . 11,357.22 on each of the workmen( 1 ) Shri Charan Singh, Chowkidar , ( 2) Shri Bhagat Ram, Beldar, (3 ) Shri Tilak Raj, Beldar , (4) Shri Tarsem Lal , Chowkidar , is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
The importance of domestic inquiry has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the HighCourts of the country by holding that the holding of the domestic inquiry is very essential so as to justify the legality of the disciplinary order passed by the Management. They have further held that in a case where the Disciplinary action has been taken by holding a fair and proper inquiry, this Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of appeal against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authorityand theAppellate Authority. In that eventuality, the powers of this Tribunal are only to the extent to find outwhether a fair and proper inquiry was held whether the principles of natural justice were followed by holding the inquiry and whether the punishment awarded was not disproportionate to the alleged misconduct against the workman. The Karnataka High Court in the case ofG.R. Venkateshwara Reddy V/ s Karnataka Road State Transportation, reported as (1995) ILLJ 1011 , laid down the requirements of reasonable procedure to be followed while holding the domestic inquiry subject to any special provisions made in the rules , regulations and standing orders governing the parties . According to their Lordship the employee proceeded against should be informed of the exact charges framed against him; he should be given opportunity to explain the material available with the Management to prove the charges against him; the evidence ofthe Management should be recorded in the presence of the delinquent employees and they should be given reasonable opportunities to cross examine the witnesses oftheManagement ; the delinquent official should also be provided with the copies of the documents relied upon by the Management or atleast should be allowed to examine those documents ; the delinquent officials should also be given chance to produce oral as well as documentary evidence and if they so desire the delinquent officials should also be examined and allowed to produce any material/documents which may be in the possession of the Management and when the disciplinary authority is different, than the Enquiring authority , the report of the inquiry should be provided to the workman and he should be permitted to make representation to the Disciplinary authority against the findings recorded against them.
On the receipt of the order notices were issuedto the parties who appeared through their representatives . The workmen filed their Claim Petition through their representatives Shri R.K. Parmar . Management filedthe reply. The workmen filed replication and affidavit of one of the workmanGulzar Singh. They also filed the affidavits of Shri Charan Singh, Tarsem Lal , Tilak Raj , other workmen. TheManagement filed the affidavit of their SDO , Disposal Store and Machinery Shri D.R. Goyal . In the reply the Manageınent took the plea that it is a case of domestic inquiry after holding the same the Management had awarded punishment to the workmen . According to them the workmen were given full opportunity to defend them- sclvcs . The procedure was followed and principle of natural justice were taken care of in holding the inquiry, therefore , the workmen have no claim to made against the Management, therefore , the reference may be answered against them. On the other hand, the workmen have claimed that they had performed their duties very sincerely and faithfully; that a false theft case of material was lodged against them which could not be proved ; that in the inquiry held against them the Management did not follow the principles of natural justice nor the reply given by them was considered, by the Inquiry Officer and even the inquiry officer appointed was not competent to hold the inquiry against them , therefore , the order of the Management directing the recovery of Rs.11,357.22 from the workman Charan Singh , Bhagat Ram, Tilak Raj and Tarsem Lal was bad in law, therefore , is required to be quashed. Thus the question which is required to be considered at this stage is whether the Management had held fair and proper inquiry
The photocopy of the inquiry proceedings is on record. Aperusal of the inquiry proceedings show that the workmen were served with the charge sheet on 14th December, 1991 . Individually against proper receipt, photo copies ofwhich are on record . The workmen individually submitted their replies to the show cause notice . There is also evidence on record to show that the statements of the workmen were also recorded. There is also ample evidence to show that the workmen asked fordocuments from the Management and the Management supplied the same to them. The workmen made the statements before the inquiry officer who asked them whether they want 10898
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] to engage any Union Leader or any defence assistance, but the workmen replied that they do not need the assistance of any body and admitted to have been read over the statements made by them.
true that from the statements of witnesses it cannot be made out that the presenting officer had put questions to the witnesses of the Management but it also shows that the workman had also not put the question to the witnesses of theManagement and all the answers are shown to be given on the questions of Inquiry Officer . In order to appreciate it should be kept in mind inquiry officer was not a judicial officer inthe inquiries generally held moreover in that fashion, but I do not find any evidence to show that the workman had raised the objections about the manner the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded before the appellate authority . The grievance now raised is an after thought and seems to be the creation of representative of theworkman that to at this stage . This has to be kept in mind thatthere is absolutely no evidence to show that the theft of the material belonging to the Management had not taken place. It is also not denied that the workmen punished were onthe watch and ward duty of the said store where the theft hadtakenplace . Even to the understanding of the common manif there is store, there is watch and ward staff appointed totake care of the stores, and if the material of the stores is found missing, who will be responsible . It was only the workmenwho were assigned thejob of protecting the stores responsible and if they were missing and it is they who are to account for it .
After going through the inquiry proceedings and after due consideration of the submissions made by the workman I am convinced that the Management had held fair and proper inquiry though it was not strictly in accordance with law and procedure, but in substance the workmendefended themselves , made statement, produced and to opportunity to produce evidence in the Court in support of the claim . For the reasons I do not find any justification to hold that the action of the Management in imposing the penalty of Rs . 11,357.22 on each of the workmen, as named in the reference was not just and legal rather I feel the Management was considerate that they only imposed the cost of material stolen otherwise they could also be punished for dereliction of duty amounting to misconduct . As such the reference is answered against the workmen. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for necessary action and the file be consignedto records after due completion .
KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
The grievance of the workmen against the holding of the inquiry and awarding the punishment to them, is that the official on whose report the proceedings for inquiry about thealleged theft were made i.e. Shri N.C Chauhan, made varied and different statements at different occasion with regardto the timewhen he first came to know about the alleged theft. In my opinion the point raised by the workmen are not of vital importance as to effect the conclusions arrived at in the inquiry for the reason that even the workman did not deny that there was removal of stores which was kept in thier watch andward, bt the Management and the stores articles mentioned, were missing from the stores . The question relevant was as towho had stolen those store articles and during what period oftime. There can be no two opinions that the duty to protect the stores was of the workmen and their colleagues who were found tobe not onduty at the time when the alleged theft was committed since either they were on leave or were not onduty at relevant time . The very nature ofduty given to the workmen wasto protect the stores and no material thereof was removed without their notice . Neither they have alleged nor, is their case that the material shown to be stolen was not kept in the stores; or that the same was removed by such and suchperson. The official act are presumed to be done in accordance with rules . If the material was kept in the stores and the removal thereof could be done by those who were incharge of that material but not without the notice of watch and ward staff and by those who were kept on watch and ward duty ofthe said material . In such a situation how the workmen who were posted at the watch and ward duty of the stores could escape the liability of the material found missing from the store . Ithas also come on record that the back side of the stores was not kept in proper form as there were lot of bushes and the theft could be done from that side . The inquiry officer observed that the staff put on watch and ward duty never reported that the back side of store was not kept properly and if that is so as was shown to be then who was at fault . To my mind it was the workman who should have reported about it so as to escape their liability . I, therefore , do not find the plea of the workmen that since the junior engineer of the store has made varied statement at different points of time relevant to hold that the inquiry held against the workmen was not fair . The workmen have not alleged anything against the J.E. who was incharge ofthe store .
का.आ. 5057. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.बी.एम.बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-23012/10/2002- आई आर (सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी The next plea of the workmen is that no normal procedure was followed in holding the inquiry ; that the inquiry officer himself acted as a Presenting Officer that the documents were not supplied to the workmen according to the list of the prosecution witnesses . I have already discussed above that the documents sought by the workmen were provided to them by the management. They were also provided with the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the Management but they did not put any question . It is
HI 10899. भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
NewDelhi , the 7th December , 2006
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5058.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । S.O. 5057. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the management of of BBMB and their workman received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006.
[सं. एल-22012/534/1994- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]
अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L-23012/ 10/2002- IR (C - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
NewDelhi, the 7th December , 2006 BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH
CASE NO . L. D. 25/2003
S.O. 5058. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.
Shri Uttam Chand C/o Sh . Dhani Ram, General Secretary, BSLProject Mazdoor Ekta Union, Sunder Nagar Township, Distt. Mandi (H. P. ) Mandi
[No. L-22012/534/ 1994- IR (C- II) ]
Applicant
Versus
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The ChiefEngineer, BSL Project, BBMB , Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi , H.P. Mandi .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
Respondent
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, APPEARANCES
JABALPUR
None
Forthe Workman
CASE NO.CGIT/LC/R 84/1995 Sh . N. K. Zakhmi
For theManagement:
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIC.M. SINGH AWARD
TheGeneral Secretary,
Passed on 20-11-2006
KoylaMazdoor Sabha (UTUC) , PostDhanpuri , Distt. Shahdol
...Workman/Union
Versus
CentralGovernment vide notification No. L- 23012/ 10/2002/IR (C. II) dated 4-2-2003 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The Sub Area Manager ,
Rungta- Chachai Sub Area, SECL,
PostAmlai, Distt. Shahdol
.....Management "Whether Sh. Uttam Chand workman, BSL, BBMB , Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi is entitled to get pension benefit? If so, from which date?"
AWARD
Passed on 29th day of November , 2006
1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 22012/534/94/IRC - II dated 16-5-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-
2. Case repeatedly called. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite repeated court notices . Learned counsel for the management submitted that Workman appears to be fairly employed some where and not interested to persue with the present reference . In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the management and my perusal of the file, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt. be informed.File be consigned to record.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Chandigarh 20-11-2006
" क्या प्रबंधतंत्र सब एरिया मैनेजर , चचाई एवं रुंगटा ग्रुप एस. ई.सी. एल. पो. अमलई जिला शहडोल ( म. प्र. ) के प्रबंधकों द्वारा श्री मोतीलाल बल्द रामपियारे टो. नं. 1250 जनरल मजदूर को वर्ष 1986 से टेरेक्सआपरेटर के पद पर कार्य लिये जाने के आधार पर उस 'टेरेक्स आपरेटर के पद पर पदस्थ न किये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है। यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है । 3916GI/06-26 10900
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II- SEC. 3( ii) )
to the post of Driver, Cat- IV and lateron granted SLU in Cat-VI on 1-1-04 vide office order No. 208 dated 31-1-2005. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is prayed that theHonourable Court be pleased to hold that the action of management of SECL in not appointing the workman as TarexOperator is legal and proper and he is not entitled to any relief what -so- ever.
2. The case of workman Shri Motilal in brief is as follows . That he had been posted as Tarex Operator in Rungta Colliery since 1986. Due to closure of Rungta Collery , he was transferred to Chachai mines where he is still working as such . That he has been posted as Tarex Opcrator since long time but he has not been regularised whereas the other employees have been regularised on the post of Tarex Operator . It is prayed that directions be issued to regularise him on the post of Tarex Operator .
4. Vide order dated 19-6-06 of this tribunal , the reference proceeded exparte against the workman for his non - appearance inspite of sufficient service of notice on himby Registered AD post as well as under Certificate of Posting.
5. The management for defending the reference filed affidavit of Shri K.A. Sunder , Dy . Personnel Manager in SECL, Sohagpur Area.
6. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management and I have gone through the entire evidence on record carefully.
7. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman, no evidence has been adduced for proving the case of the workman . Against the above , the case of the management is fully established by the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of management's witness Shri K.A. Sunder , the then Dy . Personnel Manager of SECL , Sohagpur area.
8. As mentioned above , the case of the workman has not been proved whereas it has been proved that action of management in not appointing the workman as Tarex Operator is proper and legal . The reference therefore deserves to be answered in favour of the management and against the workman but considering the facts & circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the parties should be directed to bear their own costs of this reference . The reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman in the following from :
" प्रबधतंत्र सब एरिया मैनेजर, चचाई एवं इंगटा ग्रुप एस.ई.सी. एल. पो. अमलई जिला शहडोल ( म. प्र. ) के प्रबंधको द्वारा श्री मोतीलाल बल्द रामपियारे टो .न. 1250 जनरल मजदूर को वर्ष 1986 से टेरेक्स आपरेटर के पद पर कार्य लिए जाने के आधार पर उसे टैरेक्स आपरेटर के पर पदस्थ न किये जाने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है। अतः संबंधित कर्मकार किसी अनुतोष का हकदार नहीं है । उभयपक्ष अपना-अपना वादव्यय स्वयं वहन करेगें । "
9. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C. M. SINGH , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5059.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. विन्सन्सके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 3. The management filed their Written Statement . Their case in brief is as follows . That the workman has raised the present dispute for change of his designation as Tarex Operator from the designation of General Mazdoor on the ground that the designation of some other worker was changedfrom General Mazdoor to Tarex Operator, but his designation has not been changed. As per order of the reference , the workman is claiming the post of Tarex Operator from 1986 whereas he has raised the present dispute only in the year 1995. That the reference is highly belated and hence the same is not maintainable . Workman Shri Motilal was initially appointed as General Mazdoor . He was all along working as General Mazdoor . However, the workman was being deployed to work as Tarex Operator at Rungta Collicry as and when required basis against leavc/ sick vacancy of permanent employees posted for the said job . The workman was paid the difference of wages as and when he was being engaged to do the job of Tarex Opcrator. He was never posted as Tarex Operator nor he did the job regularly . He was not provided the job of Tarex Operator against any clear/permanent vacancy . He has been paid diffcrence of wages as and when he was deployed to work as Tarex Operator at Rungta Colliery . The promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is a managerial function. It depends on various circumstances such as administrative requirement , availability of post , eligibility of workman concerned , the recommendation of DPC etc. Shri Motilal workman concerned was initially appointed on 27-3-82 as General Mazdoor , Cat - I . He was working as General Mazdoor upto his selection/ promotion to the post of Lorry cleaner as per Office Order No. SECL/PD /C & R/94/24/ 412 dated 2-7-94. He was never appointed as Tarex Operator. That the qualified persons employed as General Mazdoor are given preference for selection to the other cadre as and when recruitment takes place . That to enable the existing cmployces for the selection to the post of other cadre , they are granted opportunity to learn the work of other cadre with a viewto build up their career . In the instant case also the workman was granted an opportunity to do the job of Tarex Operator for few days with a view to gain knowledge in the Driving job. In the year 1986, he worked for 96 days , in the year 1988-112 days and in the year 1989-21 days as Tarex Operator at Rungta colliery . He was never employed / appointed on regular basis to the post of Tarex Opcrator . Morcover at the present he is not operating Tarex and has got his career growth as E & M and promoted [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/ 12/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल -31011/7/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ], एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 7th December , 2006 S.O. 5059. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT-2/ 12/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Vinsons and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.
[No.L-31011/7/2002- IR (M) ]
N. S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2 - MUMBAI PRESENT:
A. A. Lad : Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-2/12 of2003 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S . VINSONS M/s. Vinsons ,
407, EMCA House, 289, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort , Mumbai -400001 .
V/s.
Their Workmen
The President,
Transport and Dock Workers Union ,
P. D'mello Bhawan,
P. D'mello Road, Carnac Bunder , Mumbai -400038 .
APPEARANCES :
10901
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Vinsons Mumbai in not implementing the terms of settlement dated 19-11-90 by not paying the revised wages applicable to the Port & Dock Workers Mumbai to the office staff of M/s . Vinsons , Mumbai is legal andjustified? If not, to what reliefthe workmen of M/ s . Vinsons , Mumbai are entitled to? And whether the claim of the Transport & Dock Workers Union, Mumbai that the workers of M/s . Vinsons , Mumbai have been paid O.T. for having worked in day shifts to night shifts w.e.f. 1-8-2000 is correct ? Ifso , what relief the workmen are entitled to ?" 2. To support the subject matter referred in the reference, second party filed Claim Statement at Ex -5 stating that action taking by the first party in non revising and paying wages , allowances as per settlementdt . 2-8-2000 read with terms of settlement dated 19-11-1990 is illegal and unjustified. Said is disputed by first party by filing written statement at Ex - 7 . Issues are framed at Ex - 13 and thereafter it was posted for recording evidence.
3. Meanwhile , both parties prayed to take matter in Lok Adalat and filed purshis at Ex - 15 to dispose it off accordingly.
ORDER
In view of Ex- 15, reference isdisposed of in Lok Adalat .
Dt. 30-10-2006
A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer
LOK ADALAT
REFERENCE CGIT- 2/12 OF 2003 PRESENT:
Shri Ashish Ovelekar : Advocate for Management Shri J.H. Sawant : Advocate for Union
The dispute was settled in terms of consent terms dated 20-10-2006 (Ex- 15) . Posted for Award .
Sd/-
Sd/-
Nandini Menon
J.H. Sawant
Sd/-
Sd/-
Suresh Babu
For the Employer :
Panel Member
Mr. Ashish Ovalekar Advocate .
For the Workinen .
Sd/-
(Ashish Ovelekar) Advocate for the Company Sd/-
M.B. Anchan
: Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate .
Mumbai , dated 30th October , 2006 .
AWARD
A.K. Koyande
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT NO.2 AT MUMBAI.
Reference No. CGIT-2/12 of2003
M/s. Vinsons
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 31011 /07/2002 IR ( M)) dated 07-02-2003 in excrcise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- scction ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the
: 1stParty 10902
Versus
Their Workmen
Represented by Transport :
and Dock Workers Union
2nd Party.
CONSENT TERMS
The Parties have now agreed to settle the present Dispute alongwith other two cases being Application No. LC . 2/80/2002 and Reference No. CGIT 2/63/2003 for a Total amount of Rs . 19,00,000 (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs only.) upon the terms and subject to the conditions hereinafter appcaring .
1. The 1st Party Company has permanently closed down its stevedoring business with effect from 1-11-2002 and the parties argee to this position .
2. The 1st Party Company had paid to the employees as mentioned in the Schedule , hereunder , all the legal dues , including one months Notice pay , Gratuity , Closure Compensation , Leave encashment, and the employees have received the same , alongwith their P.F. Dues , from the PF Commissioner's Office.
3. The 2nd Party Union agrees that the aforementioned amount is to be distributed proportionately to the 17 individual employees as has been agreed .
4. The 2nd Party Union agrees on the individual employees receiving the agreed amount shall make application to the Tribunal shall unconditionally withdraw the same as being settled between the workmen involved and the 1st Party Company.
5. The 2nd Party agrees that on the signing of this setticment deed , all Claims and disputes pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 against the 1st Party company shall stand finally settled .
6. The 2nd Party has accepted the agreed amount in full and final settlement of claim and disputes for any arrears , monetary or otherwise , including the claims and disputes raised in all the 3 cases namely , Reference No. CGIT-2/63/2003, Reference No. CGIT 2/12/2003 and Application No. LC . 2/ 80/2002 .
7. The 2nd Party agrees they shall not raise any further grievance or claim or dispute and all disputes concerning the employment of the cmployees whom they are representing , against the 1st Party Company , and all claims and Disputes, past or future shall stand finally settled.
8. It is agreed that all the employees concerned shall sign individual and separate receipts of settlement
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) ofall the Disputes and shall furnish an individual and separateundertaking that the employees shall not raiseany further grievance or claim ofdispute and all disputes concerning them and the 1st Party shall stand settled.
The Parties, therefore pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to kindly dispose of the Reference in view of the aforesaid consent terms , and obliged .
dated this 20th day of October, 2006.
Sd/-
Sd/-
M/s. Vinsons M/s . Transport And Dock
WorkersUnion
1. Mr. Mohan P. Bhandari
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT NO . -2ATMUMBAI .
Reference No. CGIT -2/63/2003
M/s. Vinsons, Stevedores , Contractors ,
1stParty ClearingAnd ForwardingAgents :
Versus
TheirWorkmen
Represented by Transport
and Dock Workers Union
2ndParty.
Alongwith
Reference No. CGIT 2/12/2003
M/s . Vinsons ,
:
IstParty Versus
TheirWorkmen Represented
byTransport and
Dock Workers Union
:
2nd Party.
Alongwith
Reference No. L.C. 2/80/2002
Shri M.P. Bhandary & Ors . : Applicants Versus
M/s . Vinsons .
: Respondents
Signature
Amount Received
Sr. Name of the No. Employee
1. Mr. Mohan P. Bhandari . Rs . 151722.08
Rs. 125778.95
2. Mr. D.N. Narayani .
3. Mr. Mahesh P. Lulla . Rs. 125374.70
Rs. 122857.96
4. Mr. Sanjay N. Kute.
Rs. 122742.34
5. Mr. Rajan N. Kute .
Rs . 118669.95
6. Mr. Naresh V. Padwal.
7. Mr. Ramesh K. Patil . Rs. 124399.54
8. Mr. Ramesh M. Ramrakhaini .
Rs. 125704.39 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
9. Mr. Deepak S. Thorat. Rs.123483.06
10. Mr. Suresh K. Sawant. Rs . 108333.83
11. Mr. Saheb Ahmed . Rs. 105310.90
Rs . 8927387
12. Mr. Mohamad Ajmal .
13. Mr. Prashant M. Golvankar .
Rs.79686.02
Rs. 117273.53
14. Mr. Dilip R. Kadam .
Rs. 80030.41
15. Mr. Nana B. Shinde .
Rs. 89697.72
16. Mr. Vinayak S. Pandit .
Rs.89660.75
17. Mr. Jagpal singh.
2. Ms. D.F. Narayani
3. Mr. Mahesh P. Lulla .
4. Mr. Snajay N. Kute .
5. Mr. Rajan N. Kute .
6. Mr. Naresh V. Padwal .
7. Mr. Ramesh K. Patil .
8. Mr. Ramesh M. Ramrakhaini .
9. Mr. Deepak S. Thorat .
10. Mr. Suresh K. Sawant.
11. Mr. Saheb Ahmed .
12. Mr. Mohamad Ajmal.
13. Mr. Prashant M. Golvankar .
14. Mr. Dilip R. Kadam.
15. Mr. Nana B. Shinde .
16. Mr. Vinayak S. Pandit.
17. Mr. Jagpal Singh .
Sd/-
Sd/-
Advocate for the Applicants.
Advocate for the Respondents
(2nd Party)
(IstParty)
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5060.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
10903
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/39/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-31012/7/2000-आई आर ( एम ) ] एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क. अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006 S.O. 5060. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/39/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.
[No. L-31012 /7 /2000- IR ( M) ]
N.S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT : A. A. LAD, PresidingOfficer
Reference No. CGIT- 2/39 of2000 Employers in Relation to the Management of Mumbai Port Trust
The Chairman,
Mumbai Port Trust .
Mumbai .
AND
Their workmen
Shri Narayan Hari Prabhakar Represented by Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees Union, PortTurst Kamgar Sadan , Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai .
APPEARANCE
: Mr. M.B. Anchan; Advocate FortheEmployer
Forthe Workman : Mr. Jaiprakas Sawant
Advocate
Dateofreserving Award : Ist November, 2006 Date ofpassing of Award : 6th November , 2006 .
AWARD
The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under:
10904
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
Disciplinary Authority who gave punishment of dismissal . So it is submitted that there is no point in considering the grievances of the 2nd Party as 1st Party has reason to take such action which is required to maintain .
2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No.L - 31012/7 /2000 /IR( M) dated 26th May, 2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the Management of Mumbai Port Trust is justified in terminating the services of Shri Narayan Hari Prabhakar from port service? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
4. In view of the above pleading Issues were framed by myLd Predecessor at Exhibit 9. Initially Issue of fairness of enquiry and perversity of findings of the enquiry were decided to be heard first as preliminary Issues . However, both gave in writing on Exhibit 9 itself informing this Tribunal that, Tribunal , may decide all the Issues together . Accordingly I took those answer those as follows :
Issue
Findings
Yes
1. Whethe the domestic inquiry held against the workman was as perthe principles of natural justice?
No
2. Whether the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse?
No
3. Whether the action of the management of Mumbai Port Trust in terminating the Services ofShri Narayan Hari Prabhakar fromthe port services is legal andproper?
4. Ifnot , what relief the workman isentitled to?
He is to be reinstated 2. To support the subject matter in the reference , 2nd Party filed the Statement of Claim at Exhibit 6 stating and contending that, he was taken by the 1st Party as a Cook on 20th March, 1982. He worked there sincerely and without inviting any adverse remarks . However, in the year 1998 he was unable to report on duty due to sickness of his wife for 164 days from 3rd August, 1997 to 13th January , 1998. He remained absent as he was taking treatment for his wife from private Doctor and as his presence was required to look after her, he was unable to report regarding his absenteeism and cause behind that. Ist Party did not tolcrate the absenteeism of the 2nd Party and gave him a memo dated 7-4-1998 . Said was replied by 2nd Party with medical certificate . However, it was not considered. Charge shect was served upon him. Enquiry was conducted. He was declared guilty of charge of " misconduct of frequently remaining absent unauthorisedly" and on the basis of that, he was dismissed from the employment . So he prayed to set aside the said order of dismissal stating that, punishment of dismissal against absenteeism is harsh and not proportionate.
within two months from the date of this order and continuity of service but without givingbenefit of back-
wages.
Reasons:
Issues Nos . I &2 :
3. This prayer is disputed by 1st Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 8 stating and contending that , 2nd Party habitual in remaining absent from duty . He was posted as Cook and his absenteeism was very much affected on the establishment of the 1st Party . Frequently he was remaining absent. Even in the year 1990 same thing happened when he was warned . Then again in 1997-98 he remained absent . Again charge sheet was served on him and enquiry was conducted and though he was warned not to remain absent without information or without sanction of the leave , he did not left that habit and continued to behave as he liked . Though he sent application with medical certificate dated 8-1-1998 about sickness of his wife no sympathy was shown to the 2nd Party since he was warned on same cause in past . Even he admitted his absenteeism and his habit of remaining absent without permission and intimation. In fact he was staying in the campus from where he could intimate 1st Party about his absenteeism by sending message through his colleagues or co- workers . However, he did not do it which reveals that , he is not interested in the employment. If at all he was cautious he ought to have intimated the reason bchind his absenteeism and 1st Party might have considered it sympathetically . However , he did not take any lesson from previous warnings and to reflect even in the mind of
5. These issue are regarding fairness of enquiry and perversity of the findings . However, evidence lead by 2nd Party on that point by examining himself by filing an affidavit at Exhibit 12 reveals when faced cross we find he admits that, he has not complaint regarding enquiry . He admits that decision taken by Enquiry officer about his absenteeism is just and proper . Even he admits that, he did not complaint against the Enquiry Officer . So that was the only evidence led by 2nd Party and he closed his evidence by filing purshis at Exhibit 14. On that, Management examined Ramakant Dukhande at Exhibit 17 where he states that enquiry was fair and proper and finding not perverse . He states that ample opportunity was given to 2nd Party. He denies that Enquiry officer did not consider the explanation given by 2nd Party about his absenteeism .
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
6. So this is the avidence placed on record by both regarding enquiry and perversity of the findings . If we peruse the cross of the 2nd Party we find he admits that the enquiry was fair and findings not perverse . Even the Ld. Advocate for the 2nd Party submits that he has nothing to say about the enquiry and finding and want to stress the points of quantum of punishment . In this set of circumstances I conclude that, I need not spend time as well as sentences on the point of fairness of enquiry and perversity of the findings as that is not seriously challenged by the 2nd Party . So I observe enquiry fair and proper and finding not perverse . Accordingly I answer those issues to that effect ..
Issue No. 3:
7. 2nd Party claims that, punishment of dismissal against absentecisın is not just and proper and is harsh onc . It is a matter of record that, on absenteeism punishment of dismissal is given and warded on 2nd Party. It is a matter of record that, even in 1990 he was warned and after giving warning his absenteeism was ignored. It is also a matter of record that, in 1997-98 more precisely between 3-8-1997 to 13-1-1998 , he remained absent without intimation for 164 days . It is a matter of record that he was staying in the campus of the Ist Party's establishment, still he did not intimate through his colleagues or any other mode as to why he was absent . Definitely this conduct of the 2nd Party is objectionable and it reveals that , he did not take any lesson though he was warned in 1990 about his same offence and i.e. of gross misconduct i.c. remaining absent unauthorisedly and without permission of the 1st Party which invite Regulation 3( 1)( 1A) ( ii ) of the Mumbai Port Trust Employees' (Conduct) Regulations , 1976 .
8. Though he remained absent for 164 days , it is a matter of record that on 14-10-98 he submitted medical . certificate of his wife which is not challenged by 1st party. Though 2nd Party is habitual , this time i.e. during 3-8-1997 to 13-1-1998 he was having good reason to remain absent. No doubt he ought to have intimated about sickness of his wife the reason behind his absenteeism to 1st Party and ought to have applied for leave . However , he did not did it as per his habit .
9. One has to see as to why he did not intimate? No doubt , he has not explained about non- intimation to the 1st Party regarding sickness of his wife still one can understand whether it can come in the mind of employee like this to intimate employer and seek permission to remain absent to treat his wife ? It is to be noted that, he is a Cook . One has to note his status and his thinking capacity . Also one has to see whether he may be having knowledge or inanners regarding intimation or office procedure, person working on the post of the Cook definitely may not be having such an idea in what way all these things are to be followed and in what manner it is to be intimated on that point to employer . Besides , it is not that , he was not aware that in 1990 he was warned
10905 not to remain absent without intimation . According to me, his status of a Cook which may not permit him to think over it and follow it and it may not have permitted him to develop that habit of giving intimation to the employer . Still definitely dismissal for absenteeism is harsh and not proportionate punishment. The reasons for remaining absent for 164 days at the most ought to have been treated as Leave Without Pay and stoppage of one or two increments would have been sufficient punishment as happened in his case in 1990. Besides , after 1990 , absenteeism arose in 1997-98 . So there was a gap of 7 years . It does not mean that, he is habitual in remaining absent . At the most it can be said that , he is habitual of not intimating the employer about his reason in absentecism and seek permission for it and according to me his mind set when he is working as a Cook may not permit him or may not encourage him or may note push him to give such an intimation to the employer.
10. The sickness of wife of the 2nd Party is not challenged by 1st Party. Even the concerned Doctor was not examined by the 1st Party to disprove that the 2nd Party was not having good reason to remain absent . Even the Medical Certificate is not objected by the 1st Party . Admittedly 1st Party admits the position of sickness ofthe wife of the 2nd Party . When Ist party admits that 2nd Party's wife was sick, definitely one has reason to look after the wife. Perhaps there may not be any manpower to look after the sickness of his wife and for that, his presence might have been required . No doubt no details are given by the 2nd Party but generally when statement of sickness ofhis wife is made by 2nd Party and which is proved and not challenged by the Ist Party one has to consider it .
11. So if we consider all this coupled with reasons behind absenteeism assigned by 2nd Party workman which is not challenged by the Ist Party I am of the view that, the 2nd Party was having good reason to remain absent but was not having good reason not to intimate 1st Party about his absenteeism.
12. Action was taken by the Ist Party against 2nd Party on 14-1-1998. We are in November, 2006. For those days 2nd Party was without job , without payment and without work of the 1st party . He did not work for 1st Party I think 2nd Party's without work is the punishment which is more than sufficient for not intimating about his absenteeism to 1st Party.
13. If we consider all this coupled with reason behind absenteeism of 2nd Party, I conclude that, reinstatement of 2nd Party without back wages but continuity of duty will meet the ends of justice . So I answer these issues to that effect and I conclude that, 2nd Party be reinstated within two months from the date of this order with continuation of service but without giving the benefits of back wages .
14. Inview of the discussions made above I conclude that, reference requires to be partly allowed . Hence, the order.
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
10906
Versus
ORDER
The Mine Owner ,
(a) Reference is partly allowed;
Karkhena Dolomite Khadan & Agarwal Mineral,
Niwas Lajpat Rai Nagar ,
MadhyaNagri Chowk,
.Management
Juni Line,Bilaspur
(b) 1st Party is directed to reinstate the 2nd Party Narayan Hari Prabhakar within two months from the date of this order, and give him benefits of continuity of service ,
AWARD
Passed in this 14th day of November, 2006 (c) Prayer of the 2nd Party for payment of back wages is rejected;
(d ) No order as to its costs.
A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer
Mumbai, 6thNovember, 2006.
1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 29012 /24/96- IR (Vividh) dated 20-9-96has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2006
"Whether the action of the management of Karkhena Dolomite Mines of Agarwal Minerals, Bilaspur in terminating the services of Shri Hari Chand Das S/o Budh Ram Das , Ex -Raizing Mazdoor , w.e.f. 3-9-95 vide office order dated 2-9-95 is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
का.आ. 5061 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कारखेना डोलोमाइट खादान एवं अग्रवाल मिनेरल 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 सीजीआईटी / एलसी/आर/ 181 /96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-29012/24/96- आई आर( एम ) ] एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी
2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 1-10-96 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim . Inspite of sufficient service ofnotice on the parties , they failedto put in appearance and to file their respective statements of claim . Under the above circumstances , this tribunal was left with no option but to close the refrence for award . Consequently the reference was closed for award.
New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006
3. Since none ofthe parties put in appearance inspite ofsufficient service of notice on them, it clearly means that the parties are not interested in this reference. It appears from the above that perhaps no dispute is left between the parties and therefore they have not put in their appearance .
4. Under the above circumstances , this tribunal is letfwith no option but to pass no dispute award. Therefore no dispute award is passed without any order as to costs .
S.O. 5061. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ 1.C/ R/ 181 / 96 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Karkhena Dolomite Khadan &Agrawal Mineral and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006.
5. Copy of award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
[No. L- 29012 /24/96 - IR (M) )
C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer N. S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
का.आ.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/R/181/96
Presiding Officer : SHRI C. M. SINGH
ShriHarichandra Das ,
C/o . Raj Kumar Tiwari ,
Dharmamine , Secretary ,
5062.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोचीन स्टीमर एजेन्ट्स एसोसिएसन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ईकेएम/आईडी/ 186/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Chhattisgarh Mines Shramik Sangh ,
Branch Hariram Mine ,
[सं. एल-35011/6/99- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी ...Workınan/Union
Distt. Bilaspur 3 ( ii) ]
[ भाग II- खण्ड
10907 भारत का राजपन: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
New Delhi , the 7th December,2006
aggrieves workers is also present . Hence it is presumed that the union has no subsisting dispute.
3. Inthe result, an award is passed finding that the demand of union, for providing employment to the dependents of steamer Watchmen who died in harness and those who became physically disabled, is notjustified. No cost.
S.O. 5062.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/EKM/ID.186/2006) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cochin Steamer Agents Association and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006 .
Dictated tothe Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedbyher, corrected and passed by me on this the 24th dayofNovember, 2006.
[No. L-35011/6/99- IR (M)]
APPENDIX: NI
P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer N.S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM
Present : Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer
(Fridaythe 24th day of November, 2006/ 3rd Agrahayana, 1928)
I.D.186/2006
(I.D. 5/2000) of Labour Court, Ernakulam
का.आ, 5063.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. पी. स्टेट माईनिंग कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और. उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सस्कार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/ 254/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। Workman/Union : The General Secretary,
[सं. एल-29011/39/92- आई आर ( एम ) ]
एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी Cochin Port Cargo Labour Union, Eraveli Junction, Kochi-682001.
New Delhi, the 7th December , 2006′
Adv . Shri C. Anil Kumar
Management : 1. The Chairman, Governing Body, Cochin Steamer Watchman's
Scheme, Pierce Leslie Building , Bristow Road, W. Island Kochi -682-003 .
S.O. 5063. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 254 / 93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in Selation to the management of M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the CentralGovernment on 7-12-2006.
[No. L-29011/39/92 - IR (M) ] 2. The President , Cochin Steamer Agents ' Association, W. Island, Kochi .
N.S. BORA , Desk Officer Adv . M/ s B.S. Krishnan Associates
ANNEXURE
AWARD
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
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:
No. CGIT/LC/R/254/93
PresidingOfficer : SHRI C. M. SINGH
Workman/Union
TheGeneral Secretary
Madhya Pradesh Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan, Baraduar Distt.Bilaspur
"Whether the demand of the union for providing employment as steamer watchmen to the dependents of those steamer watchmen who died in harness and ofthose who have become physically disabled while in service is justified? If so , to what relief the dependents are entitled?"
Versus
Management 2.When the matter came up for evidence the counsel for the union reported that he has no instruction from the union . The Union Secretary is also absent. None of the
The Managing Director M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. ,
3916G1/06-27 [PART II-Sec. 3 ( ii )]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10908
Surya Complex,
Opposite Habibganj Police Station, Arera Colony, Bhopal
Bench ofLok Adalat
Chairman 1. Shri C. M. Singh, Presiding Officer CGIT- Cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur
Member 2. Shri Shailendra Pandey, Advocate
Member 3. Shri Liyakat Ullah, Advocate
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of November , 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 29011 /39/92- IR (Misc ) dated 22- 12-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"Whether the demand of Madhya Pradesh Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan , Baraduar, Distt. Bilaspur are justified in demanding wages Rs . 26.42 per day for the workmen working on the crusher at Hirapur from M/ s . M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. ? If yes , what relief , workmen are entitled to?" पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/7/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29011 /39/2005- आई आर( एम ) ]
एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006
S.O. 5064. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 7/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.
[No. L-29011/39/2005- IR (M) ] N.S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/7/2006
Presiding Officer : SHRI C. M. SINGH
Workman/Union : Shri Ganesh Rawat, Regional Secretary, M.P. Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan, C/oM.P. StateMining Corporation, Sub-Office , Hirapur , Sagar(M.P.)
Versus
Director Management
2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 28-12-93 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim . During the pendency of this reference case , the President ofUnion moved application mentioning therein that now no dispute is left between the parties and the reference be closed . Shri R.C. Shrivastava , Advocate counsel for management identified the signature of Shri Beniram Sahu, General Secretary of Madhya Pradesh Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan, on the said application . He also made an endorsement on application that he has no objection on behalfofmanagement if the application is allowed. It clearly indicates that now no dispute is left between the parties and therefore it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award in this case . Consequently no dispute award is passed without any order as to cost .
3.Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C.M. SINGH, Chairman
SHAILENDRAPANDEY, Member
LIYAKATULLAH, Member नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5064.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. पी. स्टेट माईनिंग कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबन्धतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के : The Managing M.P. State Mining Corporation , Puryawas Bhavan, IInd Floor , Arera Hills , Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.)
Bench ofLok Adalat
Chairman 1. Shri C. M. Singh , Presiding Officer CGIT-Cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur
Member 2. Shri Shailendra Pandey , Advocate
Member 3. Shri Liyakat Ullah , Advocate
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day of November , 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 29011 /39/2005 - IR( M) dated 16-2-2006 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-
"क्या प्रबंधतंत्र प्रबंधन निदेशक, एम.पी. स्टेट माईनिंग काप. , भोपाल म.प्र. के प्रबंधन द्वारा श्रम संघ की मांग कि श्रमिकों 10909
भारत का राजपन्न : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006.
[No. L-29011/93/2002 -IR (M); को मकाम किराया मासिक रुपए 30 से बढ़ाकर रुपए 100 प्रतिमाह करने की मांग करना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो, संबंधित कर्मचारी /का संगठन किस अनुतोष का हकदार है?"
L-29011/100/2002 - IR (M) ;
L-29011/92/2002 - IR (M); L-29011/90/2002- IR (M); 2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registeredon 22-3-2006 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements ofclaim.
N. S. BORA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, REJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI
I. D. Nos . 55/2003, 46/2003, 52/2003 and 54/2003
Inthe matter of:-
3. During the pendency of this reference Shri Ganesh Rawat, Regional Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Khadan Swatantra Mazdoor Sangathan, Sub Office Hirapur, Sagar moved an application with the prayer that no dispute is left between the parties and therefore the reference be closed . Shri R.C. Shrivastava, Advocate the learned counsel for the management conceded to the above request made by the General Secretary of the Union. As no dispute is left between the parties, it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award in this case . In view of the above no dispute award is passed without any order as to costs .
4. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
C.M. Singh ,
Shri Sunil Kumar Gaur and 39 Ors .. C/o President, Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Delhi Grinding Unit Workers ' Union , Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi- 110020 . VERSUS
Shailendra Pandey Advocate
The General Manager ,
Member
Liyakat Ullah Advocate
P.O. GCIT Cum Labour Court Jabalpur , Chairman Member P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer
APPENDIX : Nil
Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Delhi Cement Grinding Unit, Okhla Industrial Area , Phase- I , New Delhi - 110020 .
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
AWARD
का.आ.
TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter Nos . L -2901 1/93/ 2002-(IR (M) , Central Government, dt. 01-04-2003, L -29011/ 100/2002-(IR (M), Central Government, dt . 01-04-2003.L- 29011/92/2002-(IR (M) , Certral Government,dt . 01-04-2003, and L- 29011 / 90/2002 IR (M ), Central Government . dt . 01-04-2003 has referred the followin, points for adjudication. The points run as hereunder :--
5065.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिमेन्ट कॉरर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. संख्या -55/2003 , 46/2003 , 52/2003 और 54/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-29011 /93/2002- आई आर ( एम );
एल-29011 / 100/2002- आई आर ( एम );
एल-29011/92/2002- आई आर (एम );
एल-29011/90/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ;
एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006
"Whether the demand of the CCI/DGU Workers' Union in relation to absorption/regularization of the services of contract labourers , namely S/Shri Sunil Kumar Gaur, Ram Ratan, LalanJ . K. Day , Puran Singh, Ram Bali , Devender Kumar , Ram Kirpal Thakur , Satinder Singh , Ram Shakal Rai , Sadhu Ram , Fuzil Ahmed, Avshish Saxena and Smt . Alka Devi who worked in theDelhi Cement Grinding Unit of Cement Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi isjust, fair and legal ? If yes , what relief these workmen are entitled to and from which date ." ?
" S.O. 5065.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No , ID No. 55/2003, 46/2003 , 52/2003 and 54/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cement Corporation of India Limited and their workman,
"Whether the demand of the CCI/DGU Karainchari Sangharsh Union in relation to regularization of the services of 17 employees (as per list ) from the date of joining in the Delhi Cement Grinding Unit of Cement Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area , New Delhi is just, fair and legal ? If yes, what relief the workmen are entitled to and from what date ." ?
10910
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
[PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii) ]
Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi is just, fairand legal ? Ifyes, what relief workmen are entitled to and from what date."?
I.D. Nos. 55/2003, 46/2003, 52/2003 & 54/2003 involve commondispute. These are connected cases and they can be adjudicatedby common award . The grounds of all the four cases are the same. So these cases are taken up together.
"Whether the demand of the CCI/DGU Workers ' Union in relation to absorption/regularization of the services of contract labourers , namely S/Shri B. K. Shukla, Rabinder Kumar Sinha, Rajesh Singh, Binay KumarChoudhary, Pyare Lal , Bhupal Singh, Kamal Prakash and Shri Anuj Kumar who worked in the Delhi Cement Grinding Unit of Cement Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area, NewDelhi is just, fair and legal ? If no, what relief workmen are entitled to and from what date . "?
"Whether the demand of the CCI/DGU Workers '
Union in relation to absorption/regularisation of the services of contract labourers , namely S/Shri Umesh Kumar Yadav , Manvir Singh, Anil Kumar Rai , Bipin Keshri Roy. Dadan Tiwari and Smt . Radha Devi who worked in Delhi Cement Grinding Unit of Cement
Theworkmen applicants have filed claim statement. In their claim statement they have stated that they were employed with M/ s . Cement Corporation of India Limited Grinding unit, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110020, a company registered as a wholly owned Govt . of India Company . The details of the workmen services whose names appear in the order of reference are as under :-
The workmen of ID No. 55/2003 .
Sl . No. Name
Father'sName
PostHeld
Date of Joining 1 .
Shri Murari
SunilKr .Gaur
Excise Clerk (Mktg .) February,1996 2. Ram Ratan
Shri Ram Pr . Thakur
15-03-1990
Helper
3. Lalan
Sh . Jauno Pd .
17-03-1987
Helper
4. J.K. Day
17-03-1987
Sh. NepalDay
Helper
Peon
5. Puran Singh
06-01-1989
Sh . Raju Ram
6. Ram Bali
Sh . Basu Deo
15-01-1990
Mali (Mazdoor)
7. Devender Kunar
10-05-1988
Sh . Daya Chand
Helper (Elect. Dept)
8.
Sh . Ram Chander Thakur
Ram Kirpal Thakur
23-10-1991
Helper
Sh. Karit Pd.
9. Satinder Singh
12-03-1990
Mali(Mazdoor)
10. Ram Shakal Rai
Sh . Sheetal Rai
14-04-1989
Operator
11. Sadhu Ram
Mazdoor
Sh. Surju Ram
January, 1987 12 . Fuzail Ahmed
Sh . Basir Ahmed
08-01-1996
Helper
13. Avshish Saxena
W.B. Clerk
Sh. VijayBahadur
September, 1991
Saxena
(Production)
14. Alka Devi
01-01-1994
D/o. Sh . Avdesh Pd . , W/ o . Sh . Mahesh Pd.
Peon(Fin/g . M.Office)
The workinen of ID No. 46/2003 .
Sl . No. Name of Workmen
Date ofJoining
Kind ofEmployment 1 . Sh . Shriram Chaurasis
Feb., 1992
ComputerClerk
2. Sh . Chandrasekhar Das
26-08-1991
Despatch Clerk
3. Sh . Chabi Lal
21-03-1997
Peon
4. Sh . Satyander Kr . Singh
Dec. , 1997
Supervisor(Civil)
5. Sh. Arvind Kr. Tripathi
Feb. , 1996
Supervisor (Instrumentation) 6.
01-02-1990
Peon
Sh. Prakash Kr . Champati
7. Sh . Sivender Kr . Sharma
16-07-1992
Clerk
8. Sh . Vikaram Singh
May, 1995
Worker (Casual) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10911
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Sl . No. Name ofWorkmen
Kind ofEmployment
DateofJoining
9. Sh . Mahender Das
Worker(Casual)
12-06-1993
.10. Mt. NiriaSharma
Clark
March, 1995
11. Sh . Santosh Kumar Jha
28-10-1998
12. Smt. Sumitra Devi
ElectricalHelper
17-09-1992
Peon
June,1996
13. Sh. Ashok Kumar Singh
14. Sh . Sriniwas Kr.
Clerk cum TelephoneOperator
Peon
Nov. , 1989
Theworkmen of ID No. 52/2003 .
Name of Workmen
Sl . No.
Kind ofEmployment
DateofJoining
1.
WBA/Clerk
14-07-1990
Sh . B.K. Shukla
2. Sh. Rajesh Singh
18-04-1995
Automobile Supervisor
CasualWorker
20-12-1995
3. Sh .Binay Kumar Choudhary
4. Sh. PyareLal
5. Sh. Bhupal Singh
6. Sh . Kamal Prakash
22-01-1994
Mazdoor
13-03-1992
Helper
24-04-1990
WaterPump Operator
16-08-1990
7. Sh . Anuj Kumar
The workmen of ID No. 54/2003 .
Name of Workmen
Sl . No.
Helper
DateofJoining
1.
Kind ofEmployment
08-01-1991
Sh . Umesh Kumar Yadav
2. Sh. Manwar Singh
3. Sh . Bipin Keshari Roy
Clerk (Marketing & Finance Deptt.)
24-12-1991
Typist cum Clerk (Production Deptt.)
01-07-1991
Packing Plant (Mechanical Deptt .) Supervisor
07-11-1990
4. Sh . Dadan Tiwari
5. Sint . Radha Devi
That the above said workers have been continuously working from their respective dates ofjoining with artificial breaks and they are being treated as daily wages , contract workers by the management with an intention to deprive them of their legal rights to get the same scales of pay, wages and other implements which are being given to regular and permanent employees discharging same and similar duties . The workmen shown above were and are being paid the minimum wages fixed by the Delhi Government as revised from time to time . The equal pay for cqual work and other facilities and benefits which are being paid to the permanent employees/workmen of the management corporation are totally denied to the above named workmen .
Thatthe workers whose names appear in the order of reference have been engaged by the management corporation from last 10 to 12 years and it is evident from the fact that the workmen who are continuously working with the management corporation are permanently required
Peon(Marketing Deptt .)
12-03-1991
Clerk/Assistant ( Finance Deptt .) by the management corporation but just to deprive them from various facilities and benefits being paid to permanent employees of the management corporation treated these employees as daily rated or contract workers .
That the workmen are engaged as work Clerk, Helper , Mazdoor, Mali and other post with the management corporation and the work which they are performing, is connected with the principal function of the management corporation and perennial in nature . The work requires regular employment.
Thatthe so called contract is a device of exploiting the workmen. The work is available throughout the year round the clock as the workmen have been employed through out the year and not for one or two years but from last 10 to 12 years . The so called contract basis appointment isunilateral as the workmen had no other choice except to accept the employment under the currpelling circumstances ofgreat unemployment problem in the country, just for survival of self and dependent in word. Such contract 10912
arrangement in compelling circumstances cannot be termed contract with free consent. In the absence of free consent an agreement does not become a valid contract having binding force . Even otherwise in the matter of such cmployment the terms of contract cannot be applied mathematically or mechanically as in commercial matters .
In the service matters socioeconomic aspect is involved . The human lives are on peril. An arrangement be it called contract or daily wages is to be read along with the principle of natural justice, fair play , equity , justice and good conscience not arbitrary or unreasonable . Thus , this so called employment of adhoc/ temporary basis is a fraud, cheating , a device of exploitation and flouting the provision of the ID Act , 1947, the Equal Remuneration Act, Article 14, 16 , 21 , 23 and 39 ( d) of the Constitution of India. The right of livelihood has been recognized by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as fundamental right of the citizen flowing from the Article 21 of the Constitution of India .
The management corporation always needed the services of the workinen continuously and regularly but to avoid the payment of the legal dues of regular clerk and other regular posts to the workmen, the management has adopted the method of flouting laws , as if the management is sincerely following the labour laws and the provision of the Constitution of India. The non - regularization/ absorption of the services of the workmen as Clerk, Helper, Mali , Mazdoor or Peon or of the other post in proper pay scale is wholly illegal , bad, unjust and malafide .
That the workmen have been working at site ofthe management corporation under direct control and supervision of the officials of the management. Necessary instructions , advice , action are being given to the workmen .
That the workmen joined the services in the year 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 & 1996( approximately 10 years ) as Clerks , Courier Messenger etc. in Delhi Grinding unit of the management . They were providing all the services to the maitagcinent and were transferred from one department to another department on the basis of exigencies of work . The workmet arc discharging the work of a permanent and perennial nature which is primary essential for the management to continue its activities . The contribution to PF account etc. and bonus are directly made by the corporation .
That the workmen are discharging duties of permanent and perennial nature , however the management has not treated the concerned workmen as permanent employees though they have been engaged for the last 7 to 13 years in order to deprive these workmen of their rights to getting salary /wages /employment which are being paid to regular or permanent employees discharging the same and similar duties . This action on the part of the management amounts to unfair labour practice as has been envisaged in the ID Act , 1947. Schedule V enacted under section 2( ra ) of the ID Act . The clause 10 of the Schedule V reads as under :
[PART II-SBC. 3( ii))
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928
"10. To employ workmen as Badlis, Casuals or Temporary and to continue them as such for years , with the object of depriving of the status and privileges of permanent workmen ."
That the workmen concerned are also deprived of their legal right to get same scale of the pay and other benefits which have been given to the regular employees employed by the management. Admittedly it cannot be saidby any stretch of imagination that the work which the concerned workmen have been continuously doing is of intermittent and sporadic type . On the contrary the fact that the workmen have been continuously working with the management for a period of more than 10 to 15 years proves beyond any doubt that the work of the workmen concerned is of permanent and perennial in nature and the same is closely connected with the main activities of the management .
That as per the general conditions of contract and sales of the management or as per Cement Wage Board, 1981 no employee can be employed under the contract labour system. In such circumstances there cannot be a contract labour system in contravention of the aforesaid rules and regulations .
That the status of these workmen is also frequently changedby the management according to their convenience from adhoc to daily rated or from daily rated to contract workers.
That the management corporation with effect from 01-04-1999 have engaged Shri Kapil Garg, Yusuf Khan , D.S. Chuahan etc. as labour contractors and services of the workmen concerned have been shifted under the control of such labour contractors . The daily rated workmen are being paid through labour contractors who are being paid 10% commission per daily wages . Various questions marks have been raised by the auditor of the management in regard to these contractors and the system of paying 10 %. Prior to01-04-1999 , the management had adopted a practice toappoint one of the employce of the corporation including adhoc employee to function as contractor and the management used to give 10 % commission to the so called contractor (employee of the corporation) . Sometimes the management corporation used to show engagement of persons as contract labourers and the so called contractor was one of the contract labour himself, who used to get 10% as commission . The contractors were given work charge for the period of three months on rotation basis .
That all the labour contractors namely Kapil Garg , Yusuf Khan and Shri D.S. Chauhan under whom the workmen herein have occasion to serve as contract worker are not the registered contractor. There was no arrangement between the management and the said contractor as reported in auditors report appointed by the management . These contractors do not satisfy any of conditions mentioned in Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) 10913 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौषः 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
UnionWaterFront Worker and other relief under Industrial Disputes:Act is available to them.
Act, 1970. The Labour contract system is nothing but sham show and smoke screen . The labour contractors who were appointed carlier were having no licence . The workmen have been working for the last 10 to 15 years .
That a Civil Writ Petition was also filed by the Union in theHon'ble Delhi High Court with a prayer to direct the CCI Corporation to not sale out or transfer the ownership ofthe units belonging to the corporation without fixing the liability of the adhoc employees and contract labourers . The said writ petition was disposed by the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi with the direction that the petitioner union may raise these issues before the Industrial Adjudicator.
That the workmen concerned herein have been working since its inceptioni.e . starting of grinding unit till datc cither as daily wages or contract employe . They had to report directly to CCI and they were always under constant supervision of CCI. The CCI has been making paymentto the workmen herein directly. The workmen have also been subjected to departmental proceedings by the CCI . Whenever , workmen herein were sent out of Delhi , they were paid TA/DA by the CCI directly. The workmen herein and other persons are under direct contract and supervision of CCI .
That thereafter the CCIDGU Workers Union raised a dispute of regularization/ absorption of the concerned workmen before the Conciliation Officer but due to the adamant attitude of the management no settlement arrived and thus a failure report was sent to the appropriate Governmentby the conciliation officer which resulted into thepresent reference. The union also made representation tothe Hon'ble Labour Minister, Central in this regard.
Thatfrom the above facts it is clear that the contract labour system adopted by the management was nothing but sham show bogus , camouflage and mere an eye wash.
That non absorption/regularization of the workmen concerned by the management even though there is a permanent need and sanctioned post for the employment of such person in order to execute the functions and activities of the management is illegal , unconstitutional and unfair labour practice .
The management has also regularized the services of some persons who were juniors to the workmen .
That the workmen concerned and other workmen filed awrit petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide CWP. No. 5026 of 1999 when inspite of the lapse of substantial period the services of the workmen were not regularized . The Hon 'ble Delhi High Court after hearing the parties directed the workmen to approach the appropriate authority provided under the ID Act, 1947. The operative part of the order dated 18.12.2001 which is last para of the order reads as under:
That the union has espoused the cause of its members:: and the union has raised the present Industrial Dispute to the effect that the action of the management in appointing the workmen herein on contract basis with artificial breaks inservices is unjust, improper, malafide , illegal , unfair labour practice and contrary to the settled law on the following amongst others grounds .
"The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Steel Authority of India's Case (supra) has recently opined that in the judgment they have used the expression "Industrial Adjudicator" by design as determination of the question aforementioned requires inquiry into disputed question of facts which cannot conveniently be made by the Hon'ble High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution . Therefore, in such case the appropriate authority to go into these issues will be Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review."
Because the management has adopted and persued anunfair labour practice by employing workmen as badlis , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workmen inmeeting its requirements by engaging the employees on contract basis . The experience over the last 7 to 13 years is indicative of the fact that services of the workmen are defimitely required for the dayto day functioning of the management/corporation.
For all these reasons the writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. Its rejection by these orders would not in any way preclude , feter , restrict or affect the jurisdiction of the Industrial Adjudicator if any when its jurisdiction is invoked by the petitioner .
Because it is unfair to take away the right created in the favour of the workmen herein bezatise of pecuniary implications of the corporation concerned.
That the workmen concerned along with other workmen filed an LP A No.24/2002 which was withdrawn by the appellant on the ground that appellant would like to file a review petition before the Single Judge. The said LPA was dismissed as withdrawn .
Because the requirement of workmen concerned for management is perennial in nature. Because the management has been resorting to making contractual engagement with a view to exploit the concerned workmen .
Because the workmen herein have become overage after having worked with the management for several years approximately over a decade and cannot seek employment elsewhere.
That thereafter a review petition had been filed by the workmen concerned along with other workmen. The review petition has dismissed on the ground, that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and others etc. Vs. National 10914
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
replying management . As the claimants are not having the requisite qualifications , no issue of regularization arises .
Because the management has been flouting the provisions of ID Act, Article 14, 16, 21 , 23, 39 (d) of the Constitution of India . The Equal Remuneration Act, the principal of equal pay for equal work and principles of naturaljustice .
Because the management has regularized the services of some persons who were juniors to the workmen herein and thus violative of principal of equity . That no other case is pending before any court of law except this one for regularization/absorption of the workmen herein.
That the replying management is running a company namely CCI Limited which was incorporated for the production and making of cement 100% share holding presently rests with the Central Government. The CCI Limited has already been declared a sick company by the Board of Industrial and Financial Resolution ( BIFR) . Thus the present proceedings are liable to be stayed in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985 until the claimants seek permissions from the BIFR to proceed in the present case .
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present dispute is not an industrial dispute as defined under section 2 (k) of the ID Act , 1947 and accordingly the present proceedings are outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Tribunal . The dispute has neither been espoused by a union having representative character qua the replying management nor has the support of substantial number of workmen employed with the management. Accordingly the present proceedings are liable to be rejected on this ground alone.
That the claimants were never in the employment of the replying management and thus question of regularization of their services does not arise . To the information of the replying management the claimant are the employees of one M/s . Jai Bhawani Shivaji Engineering (P) Limited who is having its office at 406 Surnmeru Apartment, Kausharnbi , Ghaziabad (UP) . The replying management has no privity of contract with the claimants . The claimants are working under the direct control and supervision of the above referred contractor . The above referred contractor has not been made a party to the present proceedings . The present proceedings are thus liable tobe rejected . In the alternative notice of the present proceedings be issued to the above referred contractor and it be made a party to the present proceedings , if such procedure is permissible in law .
That the CCI Limited is a sick Undertakings . As per the order of BIFR there is ban on further employment/ recruitment. The Government auditors at the time of audit of the replying management have also objected to continuation of the contract labour vide letter dated 6-08-2003 . On account of financial cruch and lack of work the contract with the contract has been suspended. The process of privatization is in a very advanced stage of finalization. The Central Government has also decided to close down seven out of ten units on the ground of unviability and necessary permission has also been accorded by the Hon'ble BIFR in its meeting held on 28.01.2004 to the corporation for moving applicationto the appropriate Government for closure of 7 units including DCGU and further action on the same is under process . In an attempt to reduce the manpower , the management has also rolled back the retirement age of its employees from 60 to58 years . Byway of VRS the strength of employees have also been drastically reduced from 4800 to 1620 during the last three years . Seven units are not doing any production. The DCGU Unit at Delhi is also not doing any production for the last more than five years where the claimants are allegedly employed. As such the claimants were also not doing any work for the last about five years i.e. since February, 1999. The management cannot take any financial burden. Moreover , these claimants cannot be seen in isolation, as there are similarly placed persons at other units of the Company all over India.
That the claimants are not workmen as defined under Section 2 ( s ) of the ID Act, 1947. There is no contract of cmployment between the parties . Even otherwise , as per the showing of the claimants themselves , some of the claimants are working in supervisory capacity and their wages are more than the statutory limit as contemplated in Section 2 ( s ) of the ID Act, 1947. On this ground also the present proceedings are liable to be dismissed.
The CCI Limited is surviving on the basis of non- planfinancial support by way of loan from the Government . The Government Auditors have raised objection on continuation of contract labour . Since the management is surviving on thebasis of financial support by way of loan from the Government and there is no possibility of getting financial support after the audit objection. Accordingly the management has been forced to suspend the contract with the contractor till further order . The Government is not even a party to the present proceedings .
That some ofthe claimants are seeking regularization as Supervisor , Computer Clerk. It is submitted that there arc no such sanctioned regular posts with the replying management and thus no case of regularization on these posts arisc.
That the claimants do not fulfill the qualification for the claimed posts . The claimants being employees of the Contractor never disclosed their qualifications to the
That the alleged CCI/DGU Workers ' Union has moved a memorandum dated 6th September, 2003 before replying management seeking severance of the alleged relationship with the management by getting compensation [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
as per VRS in vogue ofCCI Limited. Thereafter, the alleged union has also moved the Labour Department of the Central Government. In the said application claimants have stated that they are not interested in working with the management. Once the claimants themselves are seeking severance of the alleged relationship with the replying management no question oftheir regularization would arise. On this ground also the present proceedings are liable to be dismissed.
Thatsome of the claimants are seeking regularization as Helper, Operator and Mali etc. It is denied that there is no such sanctioned post with the replying management and thus there is no case for regularization on these posts .
That it is submitted that in view of provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions ) Act, 1985 ( SICA) , order of reference and consequently the present proceedings are without jurisdiction. In any event the proceedings are liable tobe stayed and claimants be directed to move the appropriate authority for permission to proceed in the present case. Until such permission is granted by the appropriate authority, proceedings and the consequent award shall be without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
That the claimants being the employees of the contractor were not required to disclose these details ' to the management and the information is with the contractor. The allegeddetails of date of joining in the corporation and post held by the claimants are denied.
That it is denied that the claimants have been continuously working with the replying management as alleged . The claimants have been working with the contractor . The claimants cannot claim parity with the regular employees of the management who were appointed in accordance with the prescribed norms and after open competition. The principle of equal pay for equal work has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case.
That thedates of appointment given by the claimants arc fictitious and imaginary . Further as already submitted there is no work at all for the claimants and thus the question ofpermanent requirement or job being of perennial nature docs not arise . The DCGU Plant at Delhi is lying closed for five years and the claimants are not doing any work at all . It isdenied that the management/corporation is seekingto deny any benefitto the claimants . All benefits as available to the claimants in accordance with the law were made available by the contractor.
That there is no production in 7 out of 10 units including DCGU of the replying management . The CCI Limited is surviving on the basis of non -plan financial support by way of loan from the Government. The inanagement has no financial capability to take any further financial burden. As already submitted there is no production at all at DCGU nor there is/was any perennial requirement for persons such as claimants .
That it is denied that there is any exploitation of 3916GI /06-28
10915
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
claimants in any manner as alleged or otherwise. There is no work available with the management for the claimants . The claimants are not doing any work for the last five years. As already submitted the claimants do not fulfill the requisite qualifications for various posts. On this ground also , no questionofregularization arises .
That the action ofthe replying management is legal, valid and justified in all respects . The true and correct positionhas already been submitted.
That it is deniedthat claimant have been performing work under direct control and supervision of the replying respondent as alleged or otherwise . The claimants were working under direct supervision and control of the contractor.
That the allegations mentioned in paragraphs under replyare fictitious. The claimants have been working with respective contractors . The change in place of work, if any, was by the contractor to suit his own requirements . Butgiventhe fact that Delhi Cement Grinding unit is non- operative since February , 1999, there can be no exigency for any transfer, as alleged . As regards contribution to the provident fund, it is submitted that CCI as a principal employer has to ensure compliance of the provisions of EPFAct and Scheme in respect of all employees including contract labour . It is submitted that CCI is having an independent CPF Trust under exempted category . There are lots of formalities for grant of separate code to the contractors' by the PF Organization. The PF contributions are sent to the Trust by the concerned contractor through the Unit Management in cases where separate code has not been allotted by PF organisation. As regards payment of bonus , it is submitted that the bonus is paid under payment ofbonus Act by the contractor, which is ensured by the respondent corporation to avoid any violation of rules and regulations . There is no work for claimants as there is no production at all at DCGU . Since there is no work, there is no question of work being of permanent or perennial nature as alleged or otherwise.
That there is no requirement for employees such as claimants as there is no production at all at Delhi Unit. It is denied that there is any unfair labour practice on the part ofreplying respondent as alleged or otherwise .
That there is no work for claimants as there is no production at all at DCGU . Since there is no work, there is noquestion of work being of permanent or perennial nature as alleged or otherwise .
That the management shall rely on the award of the WageBoard and subsequent relevant documents including settlement in order to submit the true and correct import thereof. Moreover , even, if, the contention of the claimant istakento be correct, then in that event the relationship of the claimants with the replying management is per se illegal and the claimants are not entitled to relief on this ground itself.
10916
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
are sent to the Trust by the concerned contractor through theunitmanagement in cases where separate code has not been allotted by the PF organization. It is denied that the claimants have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the CCI Limited . The disciplinary proceedings , if any, havebeen initiated by the contractor only. It is denied that the claimants are under direct control and supervision of the CCI Limited. The CCI Limited has no contract with the claimants.
That cach and every contention raised in this para under reply is denied . The contractors have been appointed in accordance with the procedure/policy framed as per the guideline/ instructions issued by the Government of India from timeto time . Before appointment of the contractors , tenders are invited under two bid system. First Technical Commercial Evaluation is carried out and financial bid of only those tenderers who are found technically qualified are considered. It may be added that the present contractor M/ s . Jai Bhawani Shivaji Engeenering P. Limited is not only supplying the contract labour to the management but also to certain other Government Department and Public Sector Undertakings such as PHE, Deptt . of Government ofHimachal Pradesh and NHEPC (National Hydro Electric Power Corporation) .
That the conciliation proceedings failed as the claimantswere not willing to discuss the difficulties faced by the management. As and when there was regular vacancy the same was filled in accordance with norms . It was also open for claimants to make themselves available for consideration in the event they were so advised and subjecttofulfilling the requisite qualification.
It is denied that the management resorted to unfair labour practice in any manner as alleged or otherwise . The true and correct position has already been stated . The action is legal, valid and justified in all respects . As already submitted, the management has no capability to take any further financial burden .
That the claimants were free to seek employment elsewhere . The management never asked the claimants not to seek employment elsewhere . The management cannot be made to suffer on account of omiasion of the claimants . In any event the contents of the ground are denied and otherwise irrelevant. The contents are also vague .
That the claimants have filed a case seeking VRS benefits before the office of the RLC of the Central Government. On the one hand the claimants are seeking recruitment and on the other hand the claimants are seeking VRS . The case of the claimant is malafide and is liable to be dismissed. The contents of prayer are denied . In any event there is no case of regularization from the date of the initial appointments as alleged . The claimants cannot be made senior to persons who are not even party to the present proceedings.
It maybe added in the year 1999 , some of the contract employees including the claimants had moved the High Court ofDelhi and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 19-08-1999 had restrained the management from substituting the services of the petitioners . Accordingly as and when there was a change in contractor , the new contractor continued with the claimants . It is denied that the system of contract labour of the replying management is sham as alleged . It is denied that the contractors were given work charge for the period of three months on rotation basis and the contractors used to be a contract labourer themselves . The alleged details are denied in toto . Morcover , assuming though denying that the contention in the para under reply are taken to be correct and some persons might have chosen to become an employce on regular hasis of the management it would not follow that the system was sham or illusory. It may also be added that the present is not a case where the appropriate government has banned the employment of contract labourers under section 10 of the CLRA Act, 1970. The management is having licence from the appropriate Government for employing the contract labour . To the knowledge of the management the contractors have also been obtaining requisite licences as and when required.
The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.
Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
That Shri Kapil Garg and Md. Yusuf Khan and Shri D.S. Chauhan were having agreement/ contract with the management . It is denied that these contractors were not satisfying the conditions mentioned in CLRA Act. In any event, factum of violation of CLRA Act, if any, is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of present proceedings . It is denied that the workmen have been working for the last 10 to 15 years as alleged. The true and correct position has already been submitted above .
From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the following issues for decision arise.
1. Whether there is employer - employee relationship between the management and the workmen?
2. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the present reference?
That it is denied that the claimants have been working since the inception of the Grinding Unit . It is denied that the employees were under supervision of CCI as alleged. It is denied that the CCI has been making payments to the workmen directly as alleged . It is denied that CCI Limited has been making contribution towards the PF of the claimants directly .As already submitted the PF contribution 10917 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9, 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
3. Whether the workmen are entitled to regularization ?
4. Whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with back wages ?
5. Any other relief if any ?
Singh has been working from 24-12-1991 as Typist-cum- Clerk(Production Department), Bipin Kesri Roy has been working since 01-07-1991 as Packing Plant Supervisor (Mechanical Department), Dadan Tiwari has been working since 07-11-1990 as Peon (Marketing Department) and Smt. Radhi Devi has been working since 12-03-1991 as Clerk/ Assistant (Finance Department) .
Shri Bipin Kesri has been designated himself as Packing Plant Supervisor . He is drawing more than Rs . 1600 emoluments per month . It is not his case that he was supervising some commodity and not work. He has not filed even affidavit regarding the nature of his duty, so he is not working U /s 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947. The Tribunal/ Court lackjurisdiction to decide his case .
Issue No.1 . It was submitted from the side of the workmen that S /Shri Sunil Kumar Gaur has been engaged on Feb. , 1996 as Excise Clerk (Mktg. ) , Ram Ratan on 15-03-1990 as Helper , Lalan on 17-03-1987 as Helper, Puran Singh on 06-01-1989 as Peon, Ram Bali on 15-01-1990 as Mali (Mazdoor), Devender Kumar on 10-05-1988 as Helper (Electric Department), Ram Kripal Thakur on 23-10-1991 as Mali (Mazdoor) , Ram Shakal Rai on 14-04-1989 as Operator , Sadhu Ram on January , 1987 , Avshish Saxena on September . 1991 as W.B. Clerk (Production ) and Smt . Alka Devi on 01-01-1994 as Peon (Fin./G.M . Office) .
S/Shri J.K. Day engaged on 17-03-1987 as Helper , Satinder Singh engaged on 12-03-1990 as Mali ( Mazdoor) and Shri Fuzail Ahmed engaged on 08-01-1996 as Helper has not filed their statement of claim. So they are not entitled to get any relief/benefit.
Ithas been further submitted that the workmen have been rendering satisfactory service to the management for 08-12 years . They have been serving with sincerity, dedication and perservance . The management has not regularized their services to deprive them of the benefits of the benign labour law legislation . They made several representations but to no effect . They should have been regularized on their sheer regular day to day long functioning . The management has been all along abusing the labour force . The workmen have not been given equal pay for equal work . Several juniors to the workmen have been regularized but these workmen have been kept as adhoc appointees daily rated employees . They have not beenmade payment equal to regularly employed workmen. The workmen have been given notional and technical breaks for a day or so . They have been again re - engaged.
S/Shri Shriram Chaurasia has been engaged on Feb. , 1992 as Computer Clerk , Shri Chandrasekhar engaged on 26-08-1991 as Despatch Clerk , Arvind Kr . Tripathi engaged on Fcb . , 1996 as Supervisor ( Instrumentation) , Prakash Champati engaged on 01-02-1990 as Peon, Sivender Sharma engaged on 16-07-1992 as Clerk, Vikaram Singh engaged on May, 1995 as Worker ( Casual ) , Niria Sharma engaged on March , 1995 as Clerk , Santosh Kumar Jha engaged on 28-10-1998 as Electrical Helper and Smt . Sumitra Devi engaged on 17-09-1992 as Peon.
It was submitted from the side of the management that they are the employees of the contractor . They have not been directly engaged by the management . The claimants were never in the employment of the replying management . So no question of regularization arises . The claimants are the employees of one M/s . Jai Bhawani Shivaji Engineering (P) Limited. The replying management has no privityofcontract with the workmen.
S/Shri Chabi Lal engaged on 21-03-1997 as Peon, Satyender Kr . Singh engaged on Dec. , 1997 as Supervisor (Civil ) , Mahender Das engaged on 12-06-1993 as Worker (Casual ) , Ashok Kumar Singh engaged on June , 1996 as Clerk cum Telephone Operator and Shri Sriniwas Kumar engaged on Nov. , 1989 as peon have not filed their affidavits . So they are not entitled to get any relief/benefit .
S/Shri B.K. Shukla has been engagedon 14-07-1990 as WBA / Clerk , Rajesh Singh engaged on 18-04-1995 as Automobilc Supervisor , Pyare Lal engaged on 22-01-1994 as Mazdoor, Bhupal Singh engaged on 13-03-1992 as Helper, Kamal Prakash engaged on 24-04-1990 as Water Pump Operator and Shri Anuj Kumar engaged on 16-08-1990 as Helper.
It was submitted from the side of the workmen that the contractor is only name lender . There is no real contract. Payment has all along been made to the workmen by the management . The workmen work under the control and supervision of the management . The management in 2003 introduced M/s . Jai Bhawani Shivaji Engineering (P) Limited as contractor but there is no agreement of contract and no payment has been made to the contractor by any cheque . Sothe contractor cannot make payment without receiving payment from the manageinent .
Shri Binay Kumar Choudhary engaged on 20-12-1995 as Casual Worker neither appeared as witness nor filed any evidence by way of affidavit . Even single affidavit filed during the course of proceedings is not on behalf of this claimant . So this workman is not entitled to get any relief/benefit.
From perusal ofthe records it becomes quite obvious that no cheque has been given to the contractor to disburse the wages of the workers . There is no agreement between the contractor and the management . There is no agreement as to how many workmen the contractor will engage and how much payment will be paid to the contractor . The S/Shri Umesh Kumar Yadav has been working since 08-01-1991 as Clerk (Marketting and Fin. Deptt. ) , Manvir 10918
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
contractor's men are employed . Such contract cannot be said to be genuine one .
contractor has demanded commission from the management as he has made payment to the workmen. The contractor has been introduced deliberately to conceal the fact of direct employment of the workmen .
It was further submitted that the management has deposited CPF up to March, 2002 in the code of the unit CD -DG of Cement Corporation of India Limited . In case of actual contract CPF is deposited by the contractor under his own code . It is not the duty of the management to deposit CPF of contractor's workmen in its own code.
It was submitted from the side of the workmen that the CLRA 37 of 1970 is an Act to further social welfare and general interest of the community . The contract labour is tobe abolished whenever the contract is found sham and not genuine. In the instant case the contractor is only name giver . The workmen are under the control and supervision of the management. There is no proof that money is paidto the contractor and the contractor pays to its workmen . The management makes payment of wages to the workmen directly.
The so called contractor has been introduced in 2003 only . So the management has deposited CPF of these workinen under its own code . This indicates that the workmen have rightly been engaged by the respondent. They have not been engaged by contractors . Contractors if any arc name lender, there is no actual contract agreement along with any term and conditions . There is no scrap of paper on the record to show that there was agreement of contract prior to 2003. These workmen have worked for a long period under the direct control and supervision of the management .
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC I workman ARI Ltd. Versus ARI Ltd. Bhaw Nagar that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the realitybehind the facade of paper arrangement of contract labour system so according to the judgment of the Apex Court the Tribunal can examine the genuineness or otherwise of the contract labour . I find no force in the argument of the management that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction. It was further submitted that the management is an instrumentality of the Central Government . They are charged with the duties of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner . They are expected to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capricatiously.The managementmanag has not been acting fairly impartially and reasonably . It is their duty to act fairly. Despite the audit objections they went on engaging contract labour but no heed was paid by the management and they went on engaging the same workers in the fake name of different contractors . Contractors have been changed but the workmen remained the same . The management witness could not say whether the workmen have remained and the contractors have changed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC3527 has held that the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contract has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under the genuine contract or whether it is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits there under . If the contract is not genuine the alleged contract labour should be treated as the employees of the principal employer who shallbe directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment . In the instant case it is proven fact that the contractors are mere name givers and job lenders . The workmen have worked under the control and supervision of the management .
Itwas further submitted that the contract labour cannot be employed for perennial and regular nature of work . The work of Clerk , Typist, Peon, Computer Operator , Malis , Water Pump Operator , Automobile Supervisor , Electrical Helper , Telephone Operator , Despatch Clerk are the work of perennial and regular nature of work . The management cannot engage contract workmen . Whether the contract labour has been abolished or is not material in view of the Steel Authority of India's case . It has been held in the Constitution Bench Judgment that in such circumstances the Industrial Adjudicator will scrutinize the matter and hold that there is employer - employee relationship between the management and the workmen and the workmen shall be treated to be the direct employee of the management . The Tribunal has to examine relationship between the management and the workmen. It is to be examined whether there exists master and servant relation or not . It has been held in 1999 Lab IC 825 that the Tribunal can give findings that contract between the Company and its contractors is sham and bogus . The finding will not obviously abolish the contract labour system so the matter referred to here is regarding the factual finding whether contract is sham and bogus . There is no reference regarding abolition of contract labour . That the contractors have changed every year as per the admission of the management witness . 27 workmen have been performing work since 1993. The workmen worked in the cstablishment of the management . The management has control and supervision over the contractor's men, the workmen remaining the same . The contract is changed every ycar so certainly this is a facade of the papers and contract camouflage and sham and bogus . The entire establishment is owned and maintained by the management where the
Ithas beenheld in AIR 1953 SC 404 that if a master employs a servant and authorizes him to employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for cash consideration , the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
cmployees thus appointed by the servant will be equally the servants of the masters . In the instant case there is no servant to employ a number of persons . The name ofthe contractor is fake one . The workmen have been retained in the service of the management since 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993. The workmen have worked continuously since their engagement.
Ithasbeenheld in 1997 AIR SCW Page 430 that the industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid contract or it is a mere ruse/camouflage and if it is found that the contractor is only a name lender the management should be directed to regularize the workmen . In JT 2003 (1 ) SC 465 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that industrial adjudication is appropriate remedy for the alleged contract workers .
In (2000 ) 1 SCC 126-the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there are multiple pragmatic approach/factors which should be considered in deciding employer and cmployce relationship . Accordingto the criteria there should be control and integration . The management has doubtless control over the alleged contractor's men as they work in the establishment of the management . They are integrated to the service of the management. There are no terms and conditions of the contract so there is master and servant relationship. The creation of contract labour is only sham and camouflage and the employer cannot be relicved of his liabilities . According to this judgment of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court the workmen are the employees of the management . There is employer and employee relationship.
In JT 1999 (2) SC 435-the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the work is of perennial nature or ofsufficient duration , contract workers shall be considered to be the direct employees of the management and they are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of the management . The work in the instant case , no doubt, is of perennial nature as the workmen have been continuously working since their engagement. It is for sufficient duration. So the alleged contractor's men will become the servant of the management . The management has some vested interest i.c. why the management is continuing the workmen since 1990, 1991 , 1992 and 1993 and in order to veil this reality the management is giving the name of several contractors every ycar . The management is doing violent injustice to the workmen . They have been deprived of the facilities and cmoluments of regular employees . The intermediary has been introduced in order to deprive the workmen of their rights. The work is not of seasonal nature . Such workmen should not be deprived of their legitimate right.
It was submitted from the side of the management that the workmen are the contractor's men and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to regularize the workmen . Only the Central Government can abolish contract labour and direct for regularization of the contractor's men . There is no merit
10919
भारत का राजपन्न : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष-9 , 1928.
in the argument of the management . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of cases has decided that it the duty of industrial adjudicator to examine and give findings whether contract labour a sham and a mere camouflage to evade the responsibility of the management. It is admitted case that the workmen have worked continuously since their engagement.
In Pollock Law of Torts a servant and an independent contractor has been defined as under :-
Thedistinction between a servant and a independent contractor has been the subject matter of a large volume of case- law from which the text- book writers on torts have attempted to lay down some general tests . For example, in Pollock's Low ofTorts , (Pages 62 & 63 of Pollock on Torts , 15th Edn. ) the distinction has thus been brought out :
"A master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end of his work, but directs or at any inoment may direct the means also , or, as it has been put , retains the powerof controlling the work, a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result but so that in the actual execution of the work is not under the order or control ofthe person for whom he does it, and may use his own discretion in things not specified beforehand .
In Salmond's Treatise on the Law of Torts the distinction between a servant and independent contractor has been indicated as under :
"What then, is the test of this distinction between a servant and an independent contractor ? The test is the existence of a right of control over the agent in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done . A servant is an agent who works under the supervision and direction of his employer; an independent contractor is one who is his own master . A servant is a person engaged to obey his employer's orders from time to time; an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to exercise his own discretion as to the mode and time of doing it he is bound by his contract, but not by his employer's orders . "
The management retains the power of controlling the work so the workmen are the employees of the respondent/management .
The test regarding independent contractor and intermediaries have been laid down in Hussainabhai, Calicut V. the Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode [ (AIR 1978 SC 1410 (3 Judges ) ] " the true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again . Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is , in fact, the employer . He has economic control over the workers subsistence , skill , and continued employment . If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom 10920
the workers have immediate or direct relationship as contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing cmployment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management , not the immediate contractor . Myriad devices , halfhidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer , based on Articles 38 , 39, 42, 43 and 43 -A of the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances ."
This case law has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench Judgment in Steel Authority of India. In case the security job chokes off, the workmen would be laid off. Such contract is prohibited; it is not a contract for a given result.
My attention was drawn by the management to the Constitution Bench Judgment in Scale (2006) 4 Scale. It has been held in this case as under :-
"A. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made there under . Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that enequals are not treated equals . Thus , any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme .
B. A sovereign Government , considering the cconomic situation in the country and the work to be got donc , is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages . Going by alaw newly enacted , the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year , on paying wages as fixed under that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts , at a particular point of time , are tobe filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in ahazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule. My attention was drawn from the side of the workinen to another Constitution Bench Judgment-Steel Authority of India. It has been held as under :-
"Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workmen . But where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] contractor, either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment , a question miglOC arise whether the contract is a mere camouflage as in Hussainabhai Calicut's case (supra) and Indian Petrochemicals Corporation's case ( supra) etc; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workmen will be in fact an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative , the workmen will be a contract labourer . " Inthe instant case the workmen have not been hired inconnection with the work of a contractor but theyhave beenhiredby the contractor for the work of the respondents . So in the instant case there is contract of service between the principal employer and the workmen . In view of the judgment the workmen become the employees of the management .
TheConstitution Bench Judgment of Steel Authority of India is squarely applicable in the instant case. In JT 2001 ( 7) SC 268 it has been held that " 121 (5 ) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought IOC before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground ofhaving undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder . If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so -called contract labour will have tobe treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned ." It has been held in this case that whether there is prohibition of contract labour or otherwise the industrial adjidicator will have to consider the question and in case the contract appears ruse and camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations the so called contract labour will have to be treated as the employee of theprincipal employer and he shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract workers .
Engagement of contract workers for perennial and regular nature of job is prohibited. The function of the respondent is a perennial nature of job . So long as the respondents exists there would be need of workers for them, so the work is of existing, continuous and perennial in nature for such work contract workers cannot be employed.
"According to well reorganization definition of contract it is an agreement for a given result. The result should be visible. Contract labourers can be engaged for the work of contractor only and not for the work of any 10921 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
contract is a ruse and camouflage. This device has been resorted to deprive the workmen of their legal rights .
cstablishment . In the present case the work is of the cstablishment and not of the contractor . The term supply of labour by a contractor is against human dignity. No one canbe a supplier of human labour to any establishment. It isthe duty of State to give employment to citizen and not of the contractors . Contractors cannot supply labour to any establishment.
In view of the above discussions it becomes quite apparent that the workmen have been engaged since long period by the management directly and the contract is camouflage/a ruse. The workmen are the direct employees of the Principal Employer. There is master and servant relationship between the management and the workmen. This issue is decided accordingly .
Issue No.2. It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no proper espousal of the case. Theunion espoused the cause no doubt but no claim has beenfiled by the Union . The Union has not examined its General Secretary. The workmen have signed the statement ofclaim. They have filed affidavits themselves .
In view of the above discussion it becomes quite obvious that the contractors workmen in the instant case have been retained all along and contractors have been changed. So the contractor is only a label of a bottle. This labet is changed from time to time but the contents of the bottle always remain the same. The contractors have been changed and the workmen have been retained. Such adirect system is in human. The contractors are the direct cmployees of the respondent/ management. The law cited by the management is not applicable in facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is peculiar that Shri Kapil Garj, Yousuf Khan and Shri D.S. Chauhan, the employees of the management have been made the contractors and the other workers have been shifted under their contract . This is of course ugly paperarrangement
The auditors have objected to such arrangement of engaging the workmen under some workmen as contractor and giving them 10% commission. It appears that some of the favourites workmen have been given the designation of contractor and they have been paid commission tobenefit the authorities of the management . No contract agreement has been executed in between Shri Kapil Garj, YousufKhan and Shri D.S. Chouhan . They have been made payment of commission . Such practice is absolutely malafide and deceptive . Such malafide practice makes Government undertaking a sick undertaking and several undertakings have been thus , closed .
11 becomes quite obvious from perusal of the records that the workinen have been engaged since inception i.e. starting of the Grinding Unit . They have been transferred to different units and TA/DA has also been paid to them .
It was submitted from the side of the respondents that there is no proper espousal of the case . Espousal is not required in view of the substitution of Section 2 (A ) of the ID Act, 1947. There is no proof that the fellow workmen espoused the individual cause. In the instant case espousal is from CCI/DGU Workers ' Union. This Union is not a recognized union of the respondents . My attention was drawn to 1961 Vol . II LLJ Page 436,1992 ( 1 ) LLJ Page 634 at Page 365. The Hon'ble Apex Court no doubt has held that individual disputes cannot become industrial disputes in the absence ofproper espousal . It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the absence of espousal the reference of the dispute will not assume the character of industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2 K of the ID Act. The law laid down by the Apex Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as Section 2 ( A) has been inserted by Act No.35 of 1965 for S- 3 w.e.f, 01-12-1965 . The ratio decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court relates back to 1965. Sections 2 k, 2S and 10 of the ID Act , 1947 has been referred to in the judgment cited above . By that time a new Section 2 (A) has not been inserted by the legislature in the ID Act , 1947 . The plea of espousal is invariably taken in every case by the respondents . There is no need of espousal in individual case in view ofSection 2 (A) which reads as hereunder:-
"Dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be deemed to be industrial-dispute . " In view of the insertion ofSection 2 (A) an individual dispute shall be deemedto. be an industrial dispute . No espousing for individual dispute is required. The plea of espousal should not have been taken by the respondents in view of newly inserted Section 2 (A) in the ID Act , 1947. In the facts and circumstances the law cited by the respondents is not genuine in view of insertion of Section 2 ( A) and in view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case . The law cited by the respondents on this plea of espousal is not applicable in the instant case . The Union is a recognized one and the workmen are member of this Union .
Of course there is paper arrangement of contract of M/ s . Jai Bhawani but it has been introduced only in 2003 and there is no proper agreement containing the terms and conditions of making payment of wages to the workmen and service charges to the contractor . M /s . Jai Bhawani has been engaged to put the workmen under sham show of contract . The workmen have been working since 1990, 1991 , 1992, 1993, 1994 & 1995. The Grinding work is work of perennial and continuous nature . Regular workers should have been employed by the management. The authorities have resorted to unfair device . There is facade of paper arrangement and it cannot be countenanced by an Industrial Adjudicator . Piercing the veil it becomes quite obvious that all the workmen have been engaged by the management directly and the contractors are only name lenders . The 10922
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II- SHC . 3( ii ) )
to the particular circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy for the concerned person. "
"Labour Law - Regularization - Work charged/casual/ dailywage workers - In case of long continuance in service presumption for regular need of service would arise obliging authority concerned to consider with a positive mind feasibility of regularization-Statutory/public corporations should also follow suit . "
It is submitted from the side of the management that- there has been no proper espousal of the dispute . CCI/ DGU workers union has no representative character qua the replying management nor this claim has the support of substantial number of workmen employed with the management . This case involves inherent conflict of interest among various employees , as it may affect the inter se seniority of employces . Thus the requirement of espousal is a must and cannot be brushed aside as mere technicality.
It was submitted from the side of the management that a Court or a Tribunal has no power to direct regularization of services of adhoc employees. It can at the most direct the management to frame a scheme for regularization of services of the employees and consider such adhoc employees in accordance with the scheme after considering vacancies , qualifications , seniority among similarly placed employees and past record including attendance etc.
It is fact that CCI/ DGU Workers ' Union is a recognized union but in view of substitution of Section 2 (A) it is not essential that the case of individual workman or group of workmen should be espoused by a registered union . The CCI/DGU espoused the case . It has withdrawn itself thereafter . The workmen have every right to contest the case as individual or group dispute . There is no merit in the contention of the management that the cases of these workmen should have been espoused and contested by the union itself. The reference order is not bad . It is not ultravires or without jurisdiction. This Tribunal /Court has jurisdiction to decide this reference . This issued is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3. It was submitted from the side of the workmen that they have worked continuously . Some workmen have completed 10 years of service . They deserve regularization.
It was submitted from the side of the management that claims for regularization is not bonafide . Admittedly 、 on 06-09-2003 the CCI/DGU Workers Union inoved a representationbefore the ALC( C) in which it is stated that they are not willing to work with the CCI Limitedbut only want voluntary retirement benefits equivalent to the regular employees .Admittedly the representation has been moved before RLC( C) with the consent of all the claimants in the instant case. Ex . WW1 , RM - 1 is the copy of the resolution/ memorandum. Since the claimants do not want to work withthe management and are merely fighting the caseto obtain VRS benefits, the case is malafide and is liable to thrown out without any relief.
It was submitted from the side of the management that in view of Uma Devi 2006 SCC (L& S ) 753 no question of regularization arises . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case has also emphasized that the Courts /Tribunals in their sympathy for the handful adhoc /casual employees before it cannot ignore the claims for equal opportunity for the teening millions of the country who are also seeking employment . In such case, the Courts/Tribunals should adhere to the Constitutional norms and should not water down constitutional requirement in any way .
It was further submitted by the management that CCI Limited has been declared a sick company by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provision ) Act, 1985 ( SICA) . The Hon'ble BIFR has imposed ban on fresh recruitment for all the units , headquarters and marketing offices ofCCI Limited vide order dated 12-06-1998 . There has been no recruitment after 12-06-1998 at CCI . Once the competent statutory authority has imposed ban on recruitment, an award contraryto the statutory order of competent authority cannotbemade.
Ithas been held in 2006 SCC (L& S ) 753. " one aspect needs to be clarified . There may be cases where irregular appointment (not illegal appointments ) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tributals" .
Itwas further submitted from the side of the management that admittedly there has been no production at all since February 1999 at DGU. Thus there is no work at all for the claimants at DGU . Since there is no work at all , no question of regularization would arise .
It has been held in ( 1992) 4 SCC 118 . "Regularization- Ad hoc/Temporary govt. employees- Principles laid down-Those eligible and qualified and continuing in service satisfactorily for long period have a right to be considered for regularization - Long continuance in service gives rise to a presumption about need for a regular post But inere continuance for one year or so does not in every case raise such a presumption -Govt. should consider feasibility of regularization having regard
Ithas been further submitted by the management that the management has no capability to pay any salaryto the claimants . Detailed facts regarding precarious financial position ofthe CCI Limited have been stated in the written statement and in the evidence led before this Hon'ble Tribunal which have not been disputed nor can be disputed by the claimants . There is no production at DGU and thus there is no income on account of any manufacturing 10923 भारत का राजपन : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/ पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
the Industry before the competent authority. The management is facing financial burden due to resource crunch. It is admitted that there is no production of Cement after 1999. It is also admitted that these workmen have been continued in view of the orders of the Courts from 1999.
In Uma Devi's case the Constitution Bench has categorically laid down that in case workmen have been working continuously for 10 years and not on the basis of orders of Courts , their cases may be considered for regularization. In the instant case the unit was declared sick in 1999. These workmen have been continued in view of stay orders. The workmen themselves have moved application for getting compensation at par with VRS invokedwith employees ofCCI Limited . So the claimants are seeking severance of relationship for getting VRS . There is indeed nowork for the claimants .
activities at DGU . Since, there is no manufacturing activity at DGU the management has been forced to rent out substantial portion of DGU premises to another Government of IndiaCorporation, namely Container Corporation of India Limited. The amount thus received is being utilized for bare minimum necessary expenses for up keep of the plant and meeting out other administrative expenses. The management has also been getting grant from the Government by way of loan. In these circumstances it would not be in the public interest to regularize the services ofthe claimants and place further financial burden on the PublicExchequer . The management is alreadybeing forced to pay salary out of public money without any corresponding benefit to public by way of production. Moreover , the management ofCCI Limited in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble BIFR has already moved an application dated 24-05-2006 before the appropriate Government for permission to close down the undertaking ofDGU. On this ground also no case for regularization is made out.
The workmen witnesses have admitted that there is no production of Cement since February , 1999. The Union has been declared sick. It is run on the loan advanced by theCentral Government . Some workmen have taken VRS . The work is not in existence. So there is no question of regularization of the workmen. This issue is decided accordingly.
It issubmitted from the side of the management that undisputedly,there is no parity between the regular employees and the claimants . Regular employees were appointed after following prescribed procedure which inter alia requires proper circulation of the post, calling of applications and interview by the duly constituted selection committee. But no such procedure was followed, in respect of claimants . Further admittedly claimants have been working at DGU all along where as regular employees of the corporation have been transferred to other units ofthe corporation. Even otherwise there is inherent distinction between the nature of work and the responsibility of cmployees working on regular basis and ad-hoc employees . Thus principle of equal pay for equal work has no applicability to facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the claimants cannot seek wages or salary equal to their regularly appointed counterparts . The contention obviously bears some truth.
Issue No.4. It was submitted from the side of the workmen that they have worked for 8-12 years . In case theyare treated as daily wager or ad hoc employees they should have been given retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice . No retrenchment compensation has been paid to them at the time of their disengagement. So there is no cessation of service in the eyeof law. My attention was drawn by the Ld . Counsel of the workman to 2000 LLR 523 State of UP and Rajender Singh The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of the daily wager cleanerwhoworked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment . In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers the instant case.
It has been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule isto reinstate him with full back wages .
Thequestion regarding requisite qualification for the post is also not substantial . Qualifications etc. should be considered at the initial stage ofengagement. The workmen have been working at various posts since 1990, 1991, 1992 . & 1996 so at this stage requisite qualifications are immaterial . The workmen have obtained experience by long work. This argument is also not tenable .
Myattentionwas further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313 . TheHon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even ifserving for a short period should be reinstated .
Theworkmen have not been taken through regular recruitment procedure . They are purely ad - hoc and temporary and they have been continued after artificial breaks . Their work is continuous as artificial breaks are duc to no fault of the workmen.
Itwas submitted from the side of the worlemen that in the instant case Sections 25 F, G of the ID Act is attracted . In section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workmanhas performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation.
It has been held by the Hon 'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions of section The work is no longer of continuous and regular nature . There is ban for further recruitment but these workmen are not precluded from engagement on the basis offurther ban. The DGU is in precarious financial position. The management has applied for permission to close down
3916GI/06-29 10924
25 F are not complied . In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workmen who have continuously worked for 8-12 years .
It was further submitted that section 25 T- provides that the management should not indulge in unfair labour practice . Section 25 U provides that a person who commits any unfair labour practice will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to Rs . 1000/- or with both. The intention of the legislature in enacting 25 T & 25 U is obvious . The legislature wanted that in case Casual and Badlis arc engaged for a long period, it amounts to unfair labour practice: There is punitive clause for committing unfair labour practice .
It was submitted from the side of the workmen that Vth Schedule of the ID Act specifies some practices as unfair labour practice . The Vth Schedule clause 10 provides the criteria for ascertaining unfair labour practice. It is extracted as hereunder :
"To employ workman as Badlis , Casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of a permanent workman . "
Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule stipulates that in case the workmen are employed as Casuals , Badlis or Temporary and they are continued as such for years , it will amount to unfair labour practice . In the instant case the workmen have been continued as casual and temporary for 8-12 ycars . It establishes to the hilt that the respondent manageinent has committed unfair labour practice . The workmen have been engaged for 8-12 years as casual and temporary and thereafter they have been removed. They have not been paid retrenchment compensation.
It was submitted that Section 25 F, G , T, U and Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act have been deliberately violated.
In the Constitution Bench Judgment in Uma Devi's case these matters were not at issue . In case a workmen have worked for 10-12 years and the work is of continuous and regular nature they should be paid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted . There is no cessation of their services . They are deemed continued in scrvice in the eye of law . In case there is breach of section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .
ID Act , 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society . It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so section 25 F , U , Tand Clause 10 of Vth Schedule have been enacted . The objects and reasons of ID Act , 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice . The workman should notbe
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) engaged for years and then he should be removed all of a sudden. There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment. In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.
It was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has putdown a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement . The Hon'bleApex Court has held that employment can only be made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequal are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme.
Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .
The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provision of ID Act un- constitutional . The Government has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the raleofpublic employment. At the time of making temporary appointmentsArticles 14, 16, 21, 23, 226 & 309 are infringed . There is no constitutional mandate that the government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee .
No suchArticle of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector units can continue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme , such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government ofPublic Sector unit will go on resorting to the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary and adhoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon ' ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provision of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared un-constitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations .
Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was notjustified, it may , by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmanon such terms and conditions , if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require. According to this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit.
The Hon 'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annulled section 11 A of the ID Act and the legislaturehas authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal ordischarge on its consideration and direct reinstatement . Thejudgment cited by the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case .
A three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in 1993 II - LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also of the dependents . So in case of illegal termination of service the workman should be reinstated.
Reinstatement should not be misconceived as regularization . By the order of reinstatement the status quo ante of the workman is restored . He is given back wages in order to compensate him for his illegal dis - engagement. This is a special remedy provided in ID Act and it has not been annulled and set aside by any judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too .
In such cases the workman is reinstated with back wages and the respondents have every right , after payment of back wages and reinstatement, to retrench him validly following the principles of first come last go so that section 25 ,G & H of the ID Act are not violated.
It was further submitted that payment of full back wages is not the natural consequence of the order of discharge or dismissal being set aside. It has beenheld in (2003 ) 6 SCC 141 that it is incumbent upon the labour court to decide the quantum of back wages . In the instant case the matter involved was a case of theft of large quantity of Aluminum Wire. Departmental inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice so dismissal was found bad . In such circumstance the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order for payment of full back wages was not justified if termination is set aside . In PGI Vs. Raj Kumar ( 2001 ) 2 SCC 54 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the 60 % award of back wages of the Tribunal .
It has been further held in this case that payment of back wages having discretionary element involved it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case . No definite formula can be evolved.
It has been further held in this case that payment of back wages in its entirety is the statutory sanction. In (2003) 4 SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view ofdelay in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedings back wags need not be allowed . In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.
10925
भारत का राजपल : दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पाच 9, 1928
In 2004 VIII AD SC 444 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of reinstatement with 25 % backwages.
In 1978 Lab IC 1968 - three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that payment of full back wages is the normal rule . In case services have been illegally terminated either by dismissal or discharge or retrenchment, in such circumstance the workman is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness . In the instant case the workman was always ready to work but he was not permitted on account of invalid act of the employer .
In AIR 2002 SC 1313 the Hon 'ble Apex Court reduced the back wagesto25%.
In 2005 IV AD SC 39 - three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reinstatement with full back wages isjustified . In this case the workman has performed more than 240 days work and he has been retrenched withoutpayment of compensation and pay in lieu of notice.
Itwas submitted from the side of the mariagement that reinstatement is not the only remedy . In such cases the workman may be given compensation . Section 11 Aof the ID Act, 1947 provides that in case of dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement shouldbe ordered. Ithas beenheld in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule. The statute provides for reinstatement . In certain exceptional cases where the undertaking has been closed downor it has become sick there may be order for payment of compensation . The management was directed by the Interim Award dated 18-03-2004 to restore the services of the workmen and maintain status quo till the Industrial Dispute is decided. The management has not complied with the Interim Award. It has not been set aside by the Hon 'ble High Court . This reflects malafide intention of the management to deprive them of their bread.
It was submitted from the side of the workmen that the management has admitted that by proceedings dated 01-09-1998 BIFR has imposed ban for further recruitment oremployment on the management , still MW I has admitted that services of S/Shri A.K. Yadav , P.K. Jain , D.K. Srivastava and Shri Arvind Singh have been regularized in 2002. Such regularization is illegal in view of the proceedings ofBIFR. These regularized workmen are junior to the present workmen. This reflects malafide attitude of the management in respect of the present workmen .
The workmen have continuously worked for 8-12 years . They have not been paid, retrenchment compensation at the time of disengagement. They have beenheld tobe the employees of the management . So they are entitled to reinstatement .
The respondent/management has become sick unit . It is run on loan advanced by the Central Government . Whatever may be the case , in case there is retrenchment without compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act , 1947, 10926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA9, 1928 [PART II-SBC . 3( ii) ]
as Casual Worker neither appeared as witness nor filed any evidence by way of affidavit . Even single affidavit filed during the course of proceedings is not on behalf of this claimant. So this workman is not entitled to get any relief/benefit.
retrenchment becomes inoperative and there is no cessation of scrvice of the workmen . So far as back wages are concerned the unit has become a sick unit. There is no production . So in the facts and circumstances ofthe case the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with simple 25% back wages .
Shri Bipin Kesri has designated himself as Packing PlantSupervisor. He is drawing more than Rs . 1600 emoluments per month. It is not his case that he was supervising some commodity and not work. He has not filed even affidavit regarding the nature of his duty, so he is not a workman u/s 2 (s) ofthe ID Act, 1947. The Tribunal/ Court lacks jurisdiction to decide his case .
It is found proved in this case that 32 workmen have been directly engaged by the respondent/management. Contract is camouflage . They have worked for 240 days in many years in the tenure of their engagement of 8-12 years . There is no compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 . The work is of perennial nature and sufficient duration. The workmen have become over age for seeking any further cmployment . In such cases reinstatement is the only relief.
Theworkmen S/Shri J.K. Day, Satinder Singh , Fuzail Ahmed, Chabi Lal , Satyender Kumar, Mahinder Das , Ashok Kumar Singh, Sriniwas Kumar, Bipin Kumar Choudhary and Shri Bipin Kesri are not entitled to reinstatement . They are not entitled to any retrenchment compensation also. The rest of the workmen of this case are found entitled to reinstatement with 25% back wages in view of the unit being sick and financial crunch . The management will reinstate these workmen along with 25 % back wages . At the time of retrenchment in view of closure of the unit these workmen are entitled to get 4 years wages @ last drawnwagesbyway of retrenchment compensation . They cannot be retrenched without payment of retrenchment compensation of 4 years wages calculated at the rate of the lastdrawnwages .
Full back wages are not to be given automatically or mechanically. Full back wages do not follow reinstatement . The workmen belong to a poor segment of society. Their survival is in danger . They have been put in grave crisis as they have not been paid retrenchment compensation . It is also found proved that several such employees engaged a short while ago have been given VRS . Full back wages are no doubt not the natural consequences of reinstatement. In the instant case the Industry is suffering financial crunch and it is sick but never the less the workmen deserve retrenchment compensation . In view of the economic condition of the respondent 25% back wages will meet the ends of justice and help in the survival of the poor retrenched workmen .
The reference is replied thus:
This issue is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 5. From the above it becomes quite obvious that the workmen have no case for regularization. It is also admitted case that there is no work with the management . The Unit is sick and it has been closed . There is no prolaction. The workmen have been retrenched in violation of the postulates of Section 25 F of the ID Act , 1947. So in the eye of law they are entitled to reinstatement with 25 % back wages . In case of retrenchment the workmen are entitled to 4 years wages prorata the wages last drawn in view of the closure of the undertaking.
S/Shri J.K. Day engaged on 17-03-1987 as Helper, Satinder Singh engaged on 12-03-1990 as Mali ( Mazdoor) and Shri Fuzail Ahmed engaged on 08-01-1996 as Helper have not filed their statement of claim . So they are not entitled to get any relief/benefit .
The demand of the CCI/DGU Workers ' Union in relation to absorption/regularization of the services of contract labourers , namely S/ Shri Sunil Kumar Gaur , Ram Ratan, Lalan, Puran Singh, Ram Bali , Devender Kumar, Ram Kirpal Thakur , Ram Shakal Rai , Sadhu Ram, Avshish Saxena and Smt. Alka Devi , Siya Ram Chaurasia , Chandrasekhar , Arvind Tripathi , Prakash Champati , Sivender Sharma , Vikaram Singh , Niria Sharma, Santosh Kumar Jha. Smt . Sumitra Devi , B.K. Shukla, Rabinder Kumar Sinha , Rajesh Singh, Pyare Lal, Bhupal Singh , Kamal Prakash and Shri Anuj Kumar , Umesh Kumar Yadav , Manvir Singh , Anil Kumar Rai , Dadan Tiwari and Smt. Radha Devi who worked inthe Delhi Cement Grinding Unit of Cement Corporation of India, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi is neither absolutely just nor fair nor legal ? All the above named workmenare entitled to reinstatement with 25% back wages . The management is directed to reinstate the above named workmen and pay them 25% back wages within one month from the publication of the award. The management is at libertyto retrench these workmen after reinstatement and payment of 25% back wages but as a pre - condition they should be paid retrenchment compensation of 4 years wages@lastdrawn wages at the time of retrenchment .
S/Shri Chabi Lal engaged on 21-03-1997 as Peon, Satyender Kr . Singh engaged on Dec. , 1997 as Supervisor (Civil) , Mahender Das engaged on 12-06-1993 as Worker (Casual ) , Ashok Kumar Singh engaged on June , 1996 as Clerk - com- Telephone Operator and Shri Sriniwas Kumar engaged on Nov. , 1989 as Peon have not filed their affidavits . So they are not entitled to get any relief/benefit.
Award is given accordingly.
Date: 1-12-2006
Shri Binay Kurnar Choudhary engaged on 20-12-1995
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer | भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5066.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . एलायड कंन्सट्रक्शन कम्पनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी /बीएनजी/48/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29011/60/2004- आईआर( एम ) ]
एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006 S.O. 5066. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/BNG//48 /2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Allied ConstructionCompany and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.
[No. L-29011 /60/2004- IR (M) ]
N.S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated: 29th November , 2006
PRESENT
Shri A.R. Siddiqui, Presiding Officer
C.R. No.48/2004
IPARTY
The General Secretary,
Karnataka Coffce Curing & General Workers Union , AITUC Tamil Colony,
Chickmangalur Karanataka State .
11 PARTY
Shri H.P. Shankar .. Managing Partner, M/ s . Allied Construction Company , No. 33 , Jamble Kudremukh , Chickmangalur
Karnataka State .
APPEARANCES
:
IstParty
Shri Muralidhara,
Advocate
:
2ndParty
R.NagendraNaik, Advocate.
10927
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006 /पौष 9 , 1928
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the pow- ers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred thisdispute vide order . No. L-29011 /60/2004- IR (M ) dated 17th August, 2004 for adjudication on the following schedule:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.Allied Construction Company in denying bonus to their workers for the year 2002-03 is legal ? If not, what is the amount of bonus the workers arc entitled for?"
2. The first party union represented by the General Secretary , Karnataka Coffee Curing and General Workers Union (R) , AITUC, Chickmangalur filed its claim state- ment describing M/s . Allied Construction Company. the management as per the reference schedule , as Second Party (a) and the Management of Kudremukh Iron Qre Company Limited, Mudigere Taluk , Chickmangalur District as Second Party (b) and the averments made in the Claim Statement as per Paras 3 to 10 are as under :-
That the first party union is a trade union registered under the trade union Act, 1926 and is affiliated to All India Trade Union Congress . The first party/ union has membership in various industrics and other general services in around Chickmangalur District, Hassan District and Coorg District. The union has been espousing the cause of labour in- cluding contract labour who are subject to inhuman exploitation by the managements , labour contractors combine . The first party/union has been crusading against such exploitation by the Managements Contractors; that the Second Party/Management ( a) isa contractorunder the Second Party/Management (b), the Principal Employer . The Second Party ( a) has employed around 75 workers for the purpose of carrying out the work of the Principal Employer . Thus the Second party ( a) is the agent of the Principal Employer and supplies labour power to execute the work of the principal employer and supplies labour powertoer to execute the work of the Principal Employer . The workers continue to work under different contractors . The contract workers have rendered continuous service in the establishment of the Principal Employer under various contractors . During the year 2000-01 , the contract labourers were working under M/ s . Alpha Tech. Nirman Private Limited. Later on, Second Party ( a) replaced the earlier contractor . The workmen have continued to work under Second Party (a) without any break. As such, the Second party (a) is liable to pay all legal dues to the workmen employed by them , failing which the burden shifts to the Principal Employer: that the first party is represents a majority of the work force employed by the Second Party ( a) .
10928
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
3. In the prayer column the first party requested this tribunal to pass an award holding that the Second Party ( a) was not justified in denying bonus at 20 % to the workmen employed by them for the financial year 2002-03 and to direct it to pay the same to the workmen , failing which to direct the Second Party (b) to pay the same in the interest ofjustice and equity .
4. The Second Party /Management as per the sched- ule described as Second Party ( a) though made an ap- pearance through counsel but failed to file its Counter Statement and ultimately the matter was taken up for evidence to be led on behalf of the first party union .
5. On behalf of the first party union , its General Secretary has deposed to the effect he has filed the Claim Statement on behalf of the union and the workers involved in the case; that out of 75 employees working under the management company about 64 are the members of the first party union working in the coinpany for the last 10 years . He stated that they were all working as contract workers and the management company has been closed down in the month of December 2005. He stated that the management company [ second party ( a) ] was supplying workers to the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Second Party (b) and the contract between the said two management came tobe expired in the year 2004-05 . He then stated that those 75 workers were under the management company (Second Party ( a) ] for two years for 2003-04 & 2004-05. These workers were working under some other contractor earlier to working with the management company ( Second Party( a) ] and were being paid bonus at the rate of 8.33 per cent per year and that the management company has not paid bonus to its workers for the year 2002-03 despite the demand made . Then he referred to the representation dated 28-9-2002 made by him to the above effect marked at Ex.W1 sent under the certificate of posting at Ex . W1 ( a ) . He fur- ther stated that there being no respouse from the manage- ment, they made a complaint with the ALC ( C ) , Mangalore on2-1-2004 at Ex . W2 and the failure report of the ALC( C) is at Ex . W3 . In the last sentence he stated that the workers under the management were working along with the per- manent workers of Kudremukh , continuously . There was no cross - examination to the said witness on behalf of the management and there was also no evidence adduced by it in countering the said statement .
6. Learned counsel for the first party Shri MD , vehemently, argued that based on the statement of WW1 reference is to be allowed passing the award in favour of the first party union . There was no arguments advanced for the management as learned counsel representing it re- mained absent on the day fixed .
The union filed a petition before Second Party ( a) & (b ) on 15-12-2003 , seeking payment of bonus for the financial year 2002-03 , leave with wages , National and Festival holidays for the workers . Since there was no response from the Second Party ( a) & (b) , the first party/union filed a petition before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner, Central , Mangalore on the above issue on 02-01-2004 . The Asstt . Labour Commissioner initiated conciliation proceedings and on15-4-2004 and on 12-5-2004 . None from the Second Party ( a ) or (b ) represented before the conciliation officer . No statement of Objection was filed either . In the circumstances , the Conciliation Officer closed the proceedings recording failure of conciliation. Thereafter , the matter relating to non - payment of bonus only has been referred to this Hon'ble Court for adjudication; that the first party/union submits that the workmen employed by second party ( a ) during the financial year 2002-03 have worked continuously during the year and are entitled to bonus for the said year . These contract workers who have been working under Second Party ( a ) - prior to 2002-03 were paid bonus for the financial ycars 1998-99 and 1999-2000 . Even the earlier contractors used to pay bonus in the form of ex-gratia, adhoc amount etc. Hence , the workmen are entertained to bonus for the year 2002-03 ; that the Second Party ( a) earned profits during the financial year 2002-03 and as such , the workmen are entitled to maximum bonus for the said year . However , the second party ( a) has denied the bonus which is statutorily payable at 8.33 % . The action of the Second Party ( a ) is therefore , untenable ; that the Principal Employer is responsible to ensure payment of statutory to the workmen . Therefore , the second party (b) was legally obligated to either direct the Second Party (a) to pay the bonus for the year 2002-03 or to pay the same from their accounts and to recover the same fromthe contractor later on . The Principal Employer has failed to comply with the legal requirement and has contributed to miscarriage ofjustice ; that the first party/union submits that the contract labour employed by the second party ( a) to carry out the work of the Principal employer have been exploited in various ways. They suffer from low wages , insecurity of cmployment , deprivation of other benefits etc. They are even denied what is statutorily payable to them. Thus they are exploited economically and socially by the employers . These workmen are entitled to the bonus for the year 2002-03 as used to be paid in the earlier . Hence there is no justification for the second party (a) & (b) to deny them payment of bonus for the year 2002-03; that the first party/union reserves liberty to amend the statement of claim if need be on going through what may be stated by the Second Party (a ) &(b) in the Counter Statements , filed if any .
7. After having gone through the records , more particularly, the reference schedule and the very averments ofthe first party union , I am of the opinion that reference is not maintainable in law as well as in merit . As per the very case of the first party union the aforesaid 75 workers were [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
the contract workers of the management company and they were being supplied as contract labourers to the management of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company. It is also the case of the first party union that it is the Principal cmployer i.c. the Second Party (b) which is responsible to ensure statutorypayment to the workmen, in case the man- agement[ Second Party ( a) ] failed to pay such a payment namely, the bonus etc. claimed in this case . Therefore , in iny opinion , the management [ Second Party (b) ] was the proper and necessary párty to the reference schedule in question . Merely describing the management [Second Party (b) ] as a party in the Claim Statement , it cannot be held answerable or liable to pay the bonus in question in case the management [ Second Party ( a) ] which is the management as per the schedule failed to make the payment of the bonus claimed in this case . The first party union has not made any attempt to implead the management [Second Party(b)] as a party to the present proceedings . Moreover, the position of law that the contract workers cannot maintain any dispute against their contractor under the provisions of the ID Act is untenable and undisputable . Therefore , the present dispute raised against the management which is undisputedly was a contractor supplying the contract laboour to the aforesaid Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited cannot be maintained particularly, in the absence of said Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. , being party to the reference schedule .
8. Coming to the merits of the case, the General Sec- retary ofthe first party union examined before this tribunal as WW1 , as noted above, in his examination chief in no uncertain words has stated that those 75 workers were under the management company for two years i.e. for 2003-04&2004-05 and they were working under someother contractor carlier to working with the management com- pany. Therefore , when admittedly the workers on whose behalf the present dispute is raised were working under the management company [ Second Party ( a ) ] during the ycars 2003-04 & 2004-05 and not earlier to that i.e. during year 2003-04, the present reference must fail for the simple reason that it is in respect of the claim of the bonus for the year 2002-03 and not for the subsequent years . In the result, reference is answered accordingly and the follow- ing award is passed:
AWARD
10929
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
माईन्स कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/बीएनजी/ 116/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-43012/10/1999- आई आर ( एम ) ]
एन.एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006 S.O. 5067.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/BNG// 116/ 1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hatti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006 .
[No.43012/10/ 1999 - IR(M )] N.S. BORA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated, the 22nd November , 2006
PRESENT
A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer C.R. No. 116/99
I PARTY
Shri Kashim Sab , C/o K.R. Siddanajaiah, Shivapura Colony,
Bangalore-560058
Karnataka State
II PARTY
The reference stands dismissed. No costs .
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed byme on 29th November 2006) .
A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
The Chairman , HuttiGold Mines Co. Ltd, Regd. Office, 1/5, Ulsoor Road,
Bangalore-560058
Kamataka State
APPEARANCES
:
1stParty
का.आ. 5067.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हुट्टी गोल्ड
DLeelakrishnan, Advocate 10930
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 2nd Party :
NSRajaram, 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 referred this dispute vide order. No. L-43012/ 10/99-1R (M) dated 17th November , 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Wtheher the action of M/ s . Hutti Gold Mines Co. Ltd. , in imposing punishment of dismissal for service on Shri Kashim Sab is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"
2. A charge sheet dated 10-1-1995was issued to the first party workman in the following terms:
based upon sufficient and legal evidence. He challenged the dismissal order passed against him as unjust and illegal . On the merits of the case he contended that neither thealleged sterilizer end cover traced nor produced before the enquiry officer nor any police complaint is lodged for the alleged theft and that shows that allegations are concocted and false . He also . contended that the charges alleged do not disclose from where that cover (alleged theft property) was removed and from whose possession and in whose presence the same was recovered . He contended that the alleged theft property, Sterilizer End Cover is fixed to the machine not removable easily without the help of gas welding machine and such being the case the allegation against the first party that he committed theft of the said property is false and baseless . He Submitted that he is working with the management company honestly for the last more than 18 years and his family is entirely、 depending upon him and that punishment of dismissal is on higher side , against the natural justice and therefore, he requested this tribunal to set aside the dismissal order and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits .
" It is alleged that on 9.1.1995 at 9.40 PM you were found tryingto take one Sterilizer End Cover form the company's premises through Gate No. 2 without any authorization.
Your act of this amounts to misconduct under company's Standing Order No. 19 (36) .
S.O 19 ( 36) : "Theft, fraud or dishonesty in conneс- tion with the employer's business or property".
You are hereby required to submit your explanation in writing to the undersigned with 4 days of the receipt of this charge sheet, as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against you . If you do not submit your written explanation within the time , it shall be construed that you have no explanation to offer and further necessary action will be taken in the matter .
In the mainwhile you are suspended from duty with immediate effect pending the proceeding ."
3. He replied to the charge sheet denying the charges leveled against him and the management not being satisfied with the explanation offered by him , ordered Domestic Enquiry and on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service after giving him opportunity of personal hearing on the proposed punishment etc.
5. The management by its Counter Statement among other things contended that the first party was appointed in surface Section of engineering department on1.8.1997 and later he was transferred to work shop on 1-7-1990 working as Welder Grade II . On 9-1-1995 he reported for work in the morning shift and went back to home after doing his duty . Later in the evening at 8.40 PM he came to Security Gate No. 2 and requested for entry permission pass to go to the time office on the pretext of applying for leave . When he returned at about 9.40 PM on abicycle , he was found carrying a sterilizer end cover belonging to the company without any authority and was making an attempt to go through the gate No.2 . On suspicion he was questioned by the SecurityGuard and by avoiding the search he ran away with the bicycle pushing aside the security guard and in the process the sterilizer end cover and the permission pass fell near the gate . The management contended that on the basis of the complaint of the security guard he was issued charge sheet and thereupon DE was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry findings submitterd by the enquiry officer he was dismissed form service after having given an oppportunity of hearing on the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, the management contended that the enquiry conducted against the first party was in accordance with law and principles of natural justice and findings of the enquiry officer were based upon sufficient and legal evidence and in the result the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing him from service was very much just and legal.
4. The first party in his Claim Statement challenged the enquiry proceedings on the ground that they were conducted against the principles of natural justice and he also challenged the enquiry findings as perverse and not [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
6. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties with regard to the validity, fairness or other- wise of the enquiry proceedings , this tribunal took up the issue of DE in the first instance . During the course of trial of the said issue, the management examined the en- quiry officer as MWI and got marked 4 documents at Ex.M1 to M4 including the proceedings of the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer . The first party by way of rebuttal filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination chicfwithoutgetting marked any document.
7. After hearing the learned counsels for the respecс tive parties, this tribunal by order dated 24th May, 2004, recorded a finding on the above said issue holding that the Domestic Enquiry held against the first party by the man- agement was not fair and proper . Thereupon the matter came tobe posted for fresh evidence of the managementto prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party. The Management in order to substantiate the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party, as per the charge sheet at Ex . MI , examined four witnesses as MW2 toMW5 and got marked documents at Ex . M5 toM8 .
8. Statement of MW2 in his examination chief rel- evant for the purpose is that on 9-1-1995 at about 8.40PM while he was posted as Hawaldar at main gate No. 2 the first party came there and wanted to go inside the com- pany saying that he wanted to apply for leave. Therefore, he prepared a chit and handed it over to the first party. After half an hour the first party was found coming to- wards the main gate from inside the company on a bicycle and on the handle of the bicycle , there was a brass ring i.e. a big wheel made of brass of girth of one and half feet . Thereupon, he looked into the above said chit ( gate pass), marked at Ex . M5 and identified his signature . He stated that at time one Mr. Hanumantha who was the guard at the gate wanted to check up with the first party and the first party ran way with the bicycle and in the process leaving away the above said brass ring and the pass at Ex . M5 . Accordingly , he gave a complaint to the Security Inspec- tor who in turn gave it to the Security Officer marked atEx . M6 . He stated that said Hanumantha and the said Security Inspector hy name Fakir Sab since have retired from ser- vice their whereabouts are not known . Security officer is nat in service and his whereabouts are also not known . In his cross examination it was elicited that first party had run - away from the scene along with bicycle throwing gate pass and the brass ring on the spot i.e. inside the factory premises near the gate . He could not catch hold of the first party as he escaped from his hands . He denied the sugges- tion that first party was not found carrying away any such property and that he did not run away from the spot throw- ing away the said brass ring or gate pass .
9. MW3 who is said to the then Time Keeper , in his examination chief stated that gate pass at Ex . M5 does not bear his signature and that the first party did not bring to 3916GI/06-30
10931
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
him the saidgate pass and did not take his signature on the said pass. MW4 was examined to say that first party was issued with the charge sheet at Ex . M1 and gave his expla- nation at Ex. M2 and his letter is at Ex. M6 . He stated that show cause notice issued to the first party is at Ex . M7 and his reply is at Ex. M8 . MW5 the said Fakir Sab , the then Security Inspector has filed his affidavitby way of exami- nation chief and deposed to the fact that as on 9-1-1995 while he was working as a Security Inspector, the first partyhadreported for work in morning shift and wentback tohome after the shift . He stated that later in the evening at 8.40 PM he had come to the Security Gate No. 2 and after taking permission pass got inside the factory premises and then returned at about 9.40 PM on a bicycle and that he was found carrying Sterilizer End Cover belonging to the company without any authority making an attempt to go through the said gate. On suspicion he was questioned by the SecurityGuard but he avoided the search and ran away with the bicycle pushing aside the Security Guard and while doing so he dropped the sterilizer end cover and the permission pass near the gate . Then he stated that at the timeofthe incident he was in security room and has seen the first party running away with the bicycle, pushing the security guard and dropping the sterilizer end cover at the gate. He was cross examined with the help of Court Commisssioner at the request of the management and in his cross examination he was unable to say as to when the firstpartyhad come out of the factory . He denied the sug- gestion that he was not aware of the timings of the entry andexitofthe first party and that his averments in Para4 of the affidavit are false. He denied the suggestion that the first party was not present in the company premises be- tween 8.50 PM to 9.40 PM and that he is giving false evi- dence at the instance of the management .
10. Therefore, in the light of the above , the points to be considered would be:
(1) Whether the management proves that the first party committed theft or made an attempt to com- mit theft of the aforesaid alleged theft property on the date, time and place mentioned in the charge sheet? If not,
(2) To what relief the first party is entitled for?
11. In order tobring home the guilt ofthe first party as seen above , there are only two material witnesses examined, namely, MW2 & MW5 and the documents very much relied upon by the management in this context are the aforesaid gate pass at Ex. M5 and the alleged complaint aboutthe incident at Ex . M6 .
12. Learned counsel Smt . Usha Rani for Shri Rajaram representing the management vehemently argued that the charge of theft leveled against the first party has been proved in the statements of MW2 & MW5, who are the eye witnesses to the incident. She contended that as per 10932
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
Ex. M5 , the gate pass , the first party entered the premises of the factory at about 8.40 PM on the pretext that he wanted to apply for leave and at about 9.40 PM he was returning towards the gate riding a bicycle carrying the above said theft property at the handle of the Bicycle . She contended that the defence taken by the first party that infact he came tothe factory at about 4.30 PM and within 10 minutes he went backto home by producing the gate pass at Ex . M5 is ncitter believable nor acceptable in the face of the timings recorded in Ex . M5 . She contended that the intention ofthe first party in coming to the factory during hours of night after having finished his first shift in the morning shift was just to commit theft and he was seen by MW2 and one Mr. Hanumantha, the then Security Guard and so also MW5, the then Security Inspector and these three witnesses have very much deposed to the above said fact and therefore, theft charge leveled against the first party is proved .
13. Learned counsel for the first party filed his writ- ten arguments as well as advanced his oral arguments and his contention was that almost all the necessary ingredi- ents of theft or an attempt to commit theft have been very much lacking in the present case and that the story put forth by the management that the first party was found carrying the theft property is highly improbable and unbe- lievable under the facts and circumstances for the case . He submittted that it just cannot be believed that first party was not apprehended by MW2 , the Security Guard, Hanumantha and the Security Inspector , MW5 when al- leged to have been carrying with him the theft property riding the bicycle. He submittted that even the theft prop- crty was not seized nor any police complaint filed nor mahazar was drawn nor was produced before the enquiry officer much less before this tribunal . He contended that it is highly improbable to believe that the first party was making an attempt of carrying with him the property in qquestion hanged with the handle of the bicycle knowing full well that he is to be checked at the gate before he goes outofthe factory .
handle of the bicycle the theft property in question namely brass ring like big wheel made of brass of girth of one and halffeet was found hanging . He stated that when the first party wanted to go out of the factory through the gate said Hanumantha wanted to take his personal check and the firstparty run away with the bicycle leaving the said prop- ertyand the gate pass on the spot in the process . MW5 as noted above, wanted to say that at the relevant point of time he was sitting in the Security Room and has seen the first party carrying the said property on his bicycle riding it towards the main gate and run away with the bicycle push- ing the security guard dropping the theft property and pass gate on the spot. It was well argued for the first party that this evidence of MW2 & 5 does not inspire any confi- dence in the mind of this tribunal that they are speaking to thetruth. It is highly improbable to believe that MW2 who was posted as Havaldar at the gate along with the Security Guard, Mr. Hanumantha and MW5 was also said to be in the security room the first party managed to run away from the scene riding the bicycle, that too, when the gate was kept closed and guarded by MW2 and the said Security Guard.Moreover, MW2 in his statement has never spoken tothe fact the first party run away from the scene pushing aside the security guard. He simply stated that when secu- rity guard wanted to check up the first party he run away with the bicycle , It is again not believable that the first party dared enough to have exposed the theft property hanging it with the handle of the bicycle riding through the main gate which was being guarded by the said two cm- ployees ofthe management.' It was not a property small in size to be kept hidden as noted above, and it has come in the statment of MW2 himself that it was a brass ring with big wheel made of brass of girth of one and half fect . No man of prudence can just accept the story put forth by the management that the first party might have committed such afoolish act in hanging said property to the handle of the Bicycle and then riding the bicycle towards the gate being guarded by Mr. Hanumantha the Security Guard and MW2 , Havaldar . The statement of MW2 that first party was found coming riding by bicycle with the said property is again doubtful in the sense he never stated that while entering into the factory, getting the pass from him , the first party was riding the bicycle and entered into the factory with the bicycle . This bicycle was brought in picture only while the first party was returning back to the gate and not by enter- ing the factory. The next important point to be noted as argued for the first party is that even if we presume that the first party run away with the bicycle, it cannot be again digested easily that he left the property and the pass bc- fore he run away through the gate . He could have as well run away along with the property and the gate pass and that shows that the story put forth by the managementmana is very much fishy and a make believe story. This conclusion ofmine is further supported by the fact that the theft prop-
erty as such was not subjected to any mahazar or was 14. On going through the records , I do find sub- stance in the arguments advanced for the management . In this case , as noted above , though the management examined four witnesses in order to prove the charges of miscon- duct levelled against the first party, evidence of MW3 is only to speak to the gate pass not very much relevant for the purpose. Similarly evidence of MW4 who has spoken to the charge shect , show cause notice and the replies given by the first party is of no consequence in proving the charge of misconduct levcled against the first party. Now remains the statement of MW2 said to have been posted at the gate as Havaldar along with one Mr. Hanumantha, the Security Guard at the gate . His state- ment in examination chief relevant for the purpose is only to the effect that the first party at about 9.40 PM was found comming towards the gate riding the bicycle and on the 10933 [ भाग II- खण्ड (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
However, keeping in view the nature of the charge alleged against the first party and the fact that charge of theft could not be established by cogent, sufficient and legal evidence and so also not forgetting for the moment that: firstpartymust not have been idling himself all along with- out any employment earning his livelihood and the period. elapsed during the pendency of the proceedings , it ap- pears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if the first party is awarded 50% of the back wages from the date 1-12-1999 till the date of his reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits for the above said pe- riod.Hence the following Award:
AWARD
The management is directed to reinstate the first party into its services to the post he held at the time of his dismissał with 50 percent back wages from 01-12-1999 till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits during the said period . No costs.
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signedby me on 22nd Novermer 2006)
A.R.SA. R. SIDDIQUI, PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5068.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का. 14 ). की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकारः औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/98/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-11011/25/2002- आईआर( एम ) ]
एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006 scized from the spot . There is absolutely no evidence forth- coming asto what happened to the theft property, which was falling on the spot after the first party run away from the scene . MW5, the then Security Inspector who claims himself to be sitting in the security room but says nothing about the seizure of the said property from the spot or says nothing as to what happened to the property which was falling on the spot after the first party left the scene . MW2 also has not spoken a single word as to where actually the property found itself after being left on the spot by the first party .Undisputedly , the property was neither scized much Icss under a mahazor nor was produced before the enquiry officer and in the result, it was also not forthcomingbefore this tribunal . Therefore , merely because the defence taken by the first party that he infact entered the factory at about 4.30 PM and odd is not believable in the face of gate pass , showing different timing , no presumption canbedrawn or conclusion tobe arrived at to say that the first party really intended to commit theft and entered the factory to commit theft . In order to prove the incident of theft, the ingredi- ents of theft or an attempt to commit theft must be estab- lished . In the present case undisputedly, the property was not seized from the person of the first party and the story put forth by the management that he run away from the scene leaving behind him the theft property and the gate pass on the spot as noted above , is neither acceptable nor plausible .Moreover, it was not seized under any Mahazor nor there is any explanation coming forth to whose cus- tody the property remained after the incident. Therefore, in the light of the above , this tribunal has no hesitation in its mindto cometo the conclusion that charge of theft leveled against the first party has not been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and in the result, the dismissal order passed against the first party is liable to be set aside as illegal and void ab initio . Since the charge of misconduct has not been proved and the dismissal order passed against the first party held to be illrgal is and void, the natural corollary would be the reinstatement of the first party into the service of the management to the post he held at the time of dismissal order passed against him.
S.O. 5068. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ 98/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airports Authority of India and their workman which was received bythe Central Government on 07-12-2006.
[No. L- 11011/25/2002 - IR (M) ]
N. S. BORA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , NEW DELHI
I.D. No. 98/2003
Now coming to the question ofback wages , the first party came to be removed from service by order dated 30-6-1997 and whereas , he raised the dispute with the authority concerned somewhere in the year 1999 and therefore, for the period in between June 1997 and November 1999, the month of reference to this tribunal question of granting any back wages to the first party does not arise as the delay in raising the dispute for the said period has not been explained by the first party . However, the next ques- tion to be considered wouldbe whether the first party could get back wages for the period the proceedings were pending before this tribunal till the passing of the award. In his affidavit he has stated that he is job less and has not got any job . To counter his affidavit averments , there is no cvidence let in by the management though the primary burden was cast upon it to prove the gainful employment of the first party in order to deny him the back wages .
10934
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] In the matter of dispute between:
Shri Satpal & Sh.Rajesh through
M/ s . Airport Employees Union (Regd. ) , 3, V.P.House , Rafi Marg , New Delhi - 110001
Workmen
Versus
1. The Chairman ,
Airports Authority of India,
Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan ,
Ncw Delhi Safdarjung Airport , New Delhi - 110037
2. M/ s Delhi Mechanical ,
JB -35 , DG 8 Area, Hari Nagar, New Delhi - 110064
Management
Appearances : None .
AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.L- 11011/25/2002- IR(M) dated 25-6-2003 has referred the following industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
off. On the public holidays and Gazetted holidays, the building used to remain closed as those being the holidays of the Aiports Authority of India and the workmen also got holidays . Workmen also filed civil writ petition No. 621 0 of 1999 before the Delhi High Court for regularization ofservice ofworkmen which was disposed of wherein the workmenwere directed to approach appropriate forum for regularization of their services . On the basis of this judgment, the workmen filed a petition before the ALC for regularization of their services . During the pendency of this petition, the respondents terminated the services of theworkmen w.e.f. 8-2-2002. Neither the respondent No. 1 , the principal employer nor the respondent No. 2 , the contractor have assigned any reason for the termination of the services of the petitioner workmen, nor they were paid one month pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid to them which is in violation ofthe provisions ofsection 25-F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and is illegal and unjustified. Further, the respondents had not taken "experess previous permission" from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) before whom, the regularization case of the workmen was pending for terminating the services of theworkmen.
The action of the respondent is also in violation of section 33( 1)(b) of the I.D.Act and is liable to be set aside . Workmen sought reinstatement with full back wages .
"Whether the action of the management of AAI , New Delhi in stopping from their services Sh.Satpal and Sh.Rajesh engaged through M/s Delhi Mechanical w.e.f. 08-02-2002 as alleged by the Union is just, valid and reasonable ? If not, to what relief and benefits they are entitled?"
Claimhas been contested by the management No. 1 taking various objections denying the claim of the workmen as they have no locus Standi to prefer the claim as they were workmen under respondent No. 2; that dispute raised by the workmen is not covered under the definition of the I.D. Act and there is no employer- employee relationship between the respondent No.1 and hence the same is not maintainable That the Respondent Authority awarded job contract involving the work of operation and maintenance of the 2 Nos x7.5 TR package type A/ C units installed at Niamar to one Sh.Pradeep Singh, M/s . Dual Engineer .
The case was fixed for filing rejoinder but none appeared. Workman appeared on 9-1-06 when he was supplied copy of written statement by respondent No. I and thereafter the case was adjourned for filing rejoinder on subsequent hearings on 14-3-06, 30-5-06, 7.8.06 and 3-10-06 when the workman was given last opportunity and on3-10-06 case was again adjourned to 30-11-06 but none appeared. Thus perusal of the above order sheet shows that the workmen are not interested in prosecution of their claimgiving rise to the presumption that they do not dispute the correctness and justification of the alleged action of the management in stopping them from their services and the same appears to be just and reasonable. No dispute award is accordingly passed. File be consigned to record room.
SANT SINGH BAL, Presiding Officer
Dated30-11-2006.
In response to notice parties appeared and the workman filed claim statement claiming that he joined the cstablishment of respondent No.1 , Airport Authority of India on 17-1-95 as AC Plant helper through one Sh . Pradeep Singh, M/ s Dual Engineer , EXB -24 , B - Block, Gali No.1 , Hari Nagar , Ghanta Ghar, New Delhi -64 (the then contractor ) and lateron the contract was concluded and.in his place the respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s Delhi Mechanical was engaged as contractor by the respondent No. 1. The workman Satpal continued in his service/employment despite change of contractors . He passed third course in 1998 and he was promoted as AC Plant Operator w.e.f. 17-8-1998 . The second workman Rajesh was appointed as A.C Plant helper w.e.f. 17-8-98 Both of them worked in the building known as Nirmar Building of Airports Authority of India . Which building is used by Airport Authority of India as training Center to train its senior officials . Both the workmen had worked continuously from the date of their Joining till 7-2-2002 without any break : The respondent denied the workto the petitioners w.e.f. 8-2-2002. The last drawn wages of Satpal was Rs . 2895/- and Rajesh's was Rs . 2704/- . P.F.deduction was Rs . 310/ and Rs . 290/- respectively . Nature of job of the workmen is permanent and perennial in nature . It included day to day maintenance and operation of air conditioning plant, and they hadduty hours from 8.30 AM to 5.00 PM. Sunday was the weekly [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
का. आ. 5069- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार व्हिकल रिसर्च डेवलपमेंट ऐस्टेब्लिशमेंट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , अहमद नगर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या . ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/71 /2000- आई आर( डी.यू.) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006 S.O. 5069. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court Ahmadnagar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Vehicle Research Development Estt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-12-2006 .
[No. L- 14012/71 /2000- IR(D.U . ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI A. A. KHAN,PRESIDING OFFICER ISTLABOURCOURT AT AHMEDNAGAR REF . IDA/CASE NO . 7/2001
Adjudication
Between
.....PartyNo. 1 The Director, Vehicle Research Development Estt. Ahmednagar
AND
Shri G.P. Ambedkar .
.....PartyNo. 2 R/ o Valunj , Tah -Dist . Ahmednagar .
Coram : Shri A.A. Khan , P.O.
APPEARANCES
Shri A.K. Gugale, Adv . for Party No. 1 Smt . Rekha Dasare , Adv. for Party No. 2
AWARD
(Delivered on 7-10-2006)
1. This is a reference made u/s 10( 1)(c ) read with Scc . 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya , Delhi for adjudicaiton of a dispute .
2. The brief fact of the reference are as under:
That, the Party No. 1 had appointed the Party No. 2 as a Waiter in the year 1990 in officers ' mess which is run under the supervision and control of the Party No. 1. He
10935
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
has completed more than 240 days service in each year and is eligible for permanency in service . He has completed more than 8 years of service continuously with good record. TheParty No. 1 also increased his salary and was paying Rs . 1000/-p.m. The Party No. 2 claimed the wages equal to the permanent employee, hence they terminatod his service w.e.f. 12-12-99, he approached to the Labour Commissioner, Pune . The Labour Commissioner referred the matter tothe Ministry of Labour , New Delhi and the same was forwarded foradjudication.
3.According to the Party No. 2 , the Party No. 1 has terminated the services of the Party No. 2 without adopting dueprocess of law and also appointed another person in hisplace.
4. The Party No. 1 has filed reply at Exh . C-4 and contendedthatthe complaint is not within limitation . The Party No. 1 never appointed the Party No. 2 as a waiter in his establishment . According to him, the Party No. 1 have no concernwith the officers ' mess . The officers themselves runs the mess by forming mess -committee on monthly contribution from their members . There is no directly or indirectly control of the Party No. 1 over the said officers mess . The Party No. 1 is under the control of Ministry of Defence . He is recruiting authority . There is no sanction post as a waiter in any mess . The Party No. 2 is not a government servant, nor appointed as per recruitment rules; and therefore , no question of termination and reinstatement arise . Further submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application . There is no contract in between the Party No. 1 and 2 in respect of employment .
5. From the rival contentions of parties , I have framed the Issues on 3-7-2006 at Exh . 0-4 and record my findings against them for the reasons stated below:
Issues
Findings 1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction
Yes to entertain the reference
No 2. Does the Party No. 2 prove that his services has been terminated by the PartyNo. 1without obtaining due process of law ?
No 3. Ifyes , does the Party No. 2 prove that he is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages ?
4. What order?
Asper final Award.
REASONS
6. As to Issue No. 1 to 4 : In order to establish the claim, theParty No. 2 has examined himself at Exh . U- 5 and relied on documents filed below list Exh . U-8 . As against this, the Party No. 1 examined the Chie: Admin . Officer at Exh. C-6 and produced the documents at Exh. C-6/1 .
10936
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928
7. It is the case of the Party No. 2 that he is emplolyee ofthe Party No. 1 appointed in the year 1990 as a Waiter in officers ' mess which is under the supervision and control of the Party No. 1. Accordingly to him , he has completed more than 240 days service and eligible for permanency in service . Instead of granting permanency, they have orally terminated his services by adopting illegal process . As against this . the Party No. 1 contended that the Party No. 2 is not at all workman of the Party No. 1 Officers ' mess is not under the control and supervision of the Party No. 1. The Party No 1 is Central Government under the Ministry of Defence . They have their separate recruitment boards . The PartyNo. 1 is not at all recruited the Party No. 2, hence no question of termination and reinstatement arise . He has examined Chief Admin . Officer and proved the document Exh . C-6/1 .
8. Heard Shri Gugale , Adv . for the Party No. 1 and Smt . Dasare , Adv . for the Party No. 2 at the length .
A
his personal capacity, not in the capacity of the Party No. 1. He further states that the Party No. 1 runs the canteen for staff and there are sanctioned posts of 2 waiters in the said canteen. He produced the statement of details of canteen staff at Exh . C - 6/1 from August - 81 to December-2000 wherein the name of the canteen staff and their salary is mentioned in the columns but the name of this Party No. 2 is not mentioed in the list from 1981 to2000. Itappears that the Party No. 1 runs the canteen for staff, the same is under the control and supervision of the Party No. 1. They have been appointed as per their recruitment rules. It appears that the officers ' mess is not under the control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 2 is not appointed in the canteen run by the Party No. 1. On the contrary, he is employee of the officers ' mess which is not at under the control and supervision of the Party No. 1. As per Sec. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act, the Party No. 1 comes under Ministry of Defence , Government of India regulatedunder the Army Act and the same is excluded from the definition of employer . It has also come in the evidence that the Party No. 1 Military Cantonments comes under the supervision of Ministry of Defence . Admittedly , there is no appointment letter in respect of recruitment for the post of waiter as claimed. The Party No. 2 is claiming continuity of service . Granting continuity of service would be amount to recruit him for the post as claimed in officers ' mess which is not at all under the control and supervision of this Party No. 1. Hence, I hold that the Party No. 2 is not the employee of the Party No. 1 and therefore question of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages does not arise. Hence , I answer Issue No. 1 to 3 accordingly and answer the Reference in the negative . Hence , I proceed to pass the following Award .
AWARD
9. 1 perused the statement of the claim of the Party No. 2 , reply of the Party No. 1 , evidence and documents on record in the light of points argued by the counsel for the Party No. 1 and 2. It is argued on behalf of the Party No. 1 that the officers ' mess is not under the control and supervision of the Party No. I which is maintained by the officers . Therefore , the Party No. 2 is not an employee of the Party No. 1. He relied on AIR 1995 SC 1666 and AIR 2006 SC . 845 whrein it is held that, " no post for canteen was sanctioned by the State. Same was run by the Organization of the State Government . Therefore , they are not at all entitled to claim government service ." He also relied AIR 2002 SC "226 wherein it is held that, the canteen was set - up by the employment of the contractor , therefore, appointment, confirmation or dismissal from service of workman was exercised by the contractor and not by the establishment . "
1. The reference is hereby answered in the negative .
2. Four copies of Award be sent to the Desk Officer, Government of India , Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya, Shram Shakti Bhawan , Rafi Marg , New Delhi- 110001 for information and necessary action .
A.A. KHAN , Presiding Officer
Ahmednagar.
Dtd. 7-10-2006
नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5070.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार व्हिकल रिसर्च डेवलपमेन्ट ऐस्टेब्लिश्मेंट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय अहमदनगर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/69/2000- आई. आर. (डी.यू.) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 10. First of all, I have to see whether the Party No. 2 is a workman of the Party No. 1. It is noted that though he contended that he is appointed as a waiter in the year 1990 in officers' mess but he did not produce any appointment Ictter . He further contended that the mess is under the supervision and control of Party No. 1. In order to prove this fact , he produced the certificate issued by the Jt . Director of Party No. 1 Mr. U.S. Abrol filed below list Exh . U-8 . It appcars that Shri US Abrol , Jt. Director of the Party No. 1 issued experience certificate and contended that the Party No. 2 is working as a waiter/helper in VRDE officers ' mess since 1990. His consolidated salary is Rs . 500/ - pm . It was issued on 29-1-97 . As against this , the Party No. 1 adduced oral evidence of Chief Admin . Officer , VRDE and states that the Party No. 1 is under the control of Defence Ministry. Union of India and there is separate recruitment board to appoint the employee in their establishment . The officers association used to run the mess and not by the Party No. 1. The Party No. 2 was working as waiter in officers ' mess . He being the officer issued the certificate in [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Ncw Delhi , the 8th December, 2006
S.O. 5070. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court , Ahmednagar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vehicle Research Development Estt. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 08-12-2006 .
[No. L- 14012/69/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRIA.A. KHAN , PRESIDING OFFICER , Ist LABOUR COURTATAHMEDNAGAR Ref. IDA/Case No. 6/2001
Adjudication
BETWEEN
TheDiretor, Vehicle Rescarch Development Fstt . Ahmednagar :
PartyNo. 1
And
PartyNo. 2 Shri S. R. Gunjal , R/O Nimbodi , Tah-Nagar, District- Ahmednagar:
CORAM
: Shri A. A. Khan , P.O.
APPEARANCES
Shri A. K. Gugale , Adv . for Party No. 1
Shri Rekha Dasare , Adv . for Party No. 2
AWARD
(Delivered on 7-10-2006)
1. This is a reference made under Sec . 10( 1 ) (c) read with Section 12 ( 5 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 sent by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour /Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi for adjudication ofdispute.
2. The brief facts of the reference are as under:
That , the Party No. 1 is Vehicle Research Development Establishment of Military Cantonment. Party No. 2. is a Cook in the officers ' mess which is under the supervision and control of the Party No. 1. He was regular and continuous in service . He has also completed 240days service in each year and cligible for permanency . TheParty No. 2 has completed 15 years of service . At present, he was drawing salary of Rs . 1150 p.m. His pay - scale is not revised since long . The Party No. 1 is not paying the wages equal to the permanent employee . The Party No. 1 has orally terminated his services w.e.f. 12-12-99 . No notice of retrenchiment compensation given to the Party No. 2. No. charge - sheet was served, no departmental inquiry was initiated before termination . The termination is illegal and
10937 against law . He approached to the Labour Commissioner, Pune. The matter was referred to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour and referred to this court for adjudication of the claim . The Party No. 2 claiming the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.
3. The Party No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement at Exh . C-4 and contended that this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter , the complaint is not within time. According to him, he was not employeeof the Party No. 1. The officers ' mess is run by the officers privately . The said officers' mess is not under the supervision and control of the Party No. 1. The Party No: 1 has no control in running of officers ' mess . There is no directly or indirectly control over the officers ' mess . The officers' mess is constituted by the members . The officers mess have no sanctioned post . The Party No. 1 is Defence Departmentunder the control of Government of India where none can be allowed to work without post being sanctioned by the Government and without adopting the recruitment rules . The officers' mess is not the part and parcel Defence Service. There is no sanctioned post. It was run by the officers independently. No. Defence Service Rule are applicable to the said mess. Therefore, the allegations of thePartyNo. 2regarding reinstatement with continuity in service and back wages are not tenable in the eye of law , hence itbe dismissed . Further contended that this Hon'blе court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the reference. The Central Administrative Tribunal is proper Forumto adjudicate the claim. 76 4. From the rival contentions of the parties , my Predecessor has framed the Issues at Exh . 0-6 and I recasted the same and record my finding thereon for the reasons stated below :
Issues
Findings
Ycs 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the reference ?
No. 2.Does the Party No. 2 prove that his services has been terminated by the Party No. 1 without adopting dueprocess of law ?
No. 3.If yes, does the Party No. 2 prove that he is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with eontinuity in service and back wages?
4. What order ?
As per final award
REASONS
5. As to Issue No. 1 to 3 : In order to establish the claim of the Party No. 2 , the Party No. 2 adduced oral evidence at Exh. 0-7 and produced the documents below list Exh . U- 8 . As against this , the Party No. 1 adduced oral evidence at Exh. C- 10 and produced the documents along- withapplication Exh. C- 11 . It is the case of the Party No, 2 that he is employee of the Party No. 1 Vehicle Research 10938
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]
agency of Corporation , therefore , the workers employed in canteen were not the employee of L.1.C. " He also relied on AIR 2006 SC. 845, wherein it is held that , "the canteen is runin hospital of organization of the State. Post have not been sanctioned , therefore , they are not entitled to remuneration , scale as per the Government employee" .Не also relied on AIR 2002 SC 226 wherein it is held that, the workmen of statutory canteen cannot claim to be a regular worker of the establishment . "
Development Establishment which comes under the Ministry of Defence . He was appointed in the year 1985 as aCook on monthly payment of Rs. 1150. Accordingly, he was orally engaged , no appointment order issued to him. He isin continuous service since 1985 in the establishment ofthe Party No. 1. The Party No. 1 runs the officers' mess . He used to sign the attendance register every day . The officers of the Party No. 1 used to pay him the wages on 1st of each month . He has completed 240 days in every year . His services orally terminated on 12-12-99 . No notice or retrenchment compensation paid to him . The mess is still in existence . According to him , he demanded equal pay with the permanent workers . Therefore , they have terminated him . In support of his contentions he filed certificate dated 21-10-86 issued by the officers of the Vehicle Research Development Establishment wherein it is contended that he is working with the Party No. 1 in officers mess since 1983. As against this the Party No. 1 examined one Ramchandran Palliath who is C.E.O. of the Party No. 1. Accordingto him, the Party No. 2 was cook in the officers mess which is not under the control or supervision of the PartyNo. 1.According to him, the same is run by the officers association . The said mess have no concern with the Party No. 1. The Party No. 1 runs the canteen for the welfare and benefits of the workers and staff since 1981. Therefore, nó need to run the mess . In support of his contentions , he also produced the statement of canteen since 1981 to December 2000. He also produced the certified copy of application dated 27-6-95 filed by the Party No. 2 to the Party No. 1 with reference to advertisement of daily Loksatta dated 25-6-95 for the vacancy of cook in canteen, wherein it is contended in Column - E that he was working in VRDE officers ' mess since 1985 till date . He had also produced the employment card. He further states that officers' mess is at all not under the control of the Party No. 1. The Party No.1 is the establishment under Union of India. There is separate Forum Central Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Act . Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this application . He is not atall workman ofthe PartyNo. 1.
7. From the evidence and documents on record placed by both parties and admitted facts on record , it appears that the PartyNo.1 VRDE is an establishment of the Ministry of Defence under the provision of Army Act, 1950. It is alleged that the Party No. 2 was working in Party No. I's officers mess since June -83 . Now, I have to see , whether the officers mess is run by VRDE , Ministry of Defence , Government of India . In support of the contentions of the Party No.2, the Party No. 2 produced the certificate below list Exh . U-8 . I have carefully gone through the contents of certificate. It appears that it was issued on 21-10-86 by one officer of the Party No.1 Shri R.C. Jalan who is Mess Secretary. Now again question arise , whether the mess is part and parcel of the establishment of the Party No. 1. It has come in the evidence that mess is separate entity which is run by the officers association and not by the Party No. 1. In order to prove this facts , the Party No.1 produced the details of canteen staff since 1981 to 2000 wherein name ofthisParty No. 2is not mentioned . The detailed statement of canteen staffappears that the Party No.1 runs the canteen wherein they have appointed clerk, cook, waiter and also mentioned the name of individuals and their pay - scale wherein the name of this Party No. 2 is not at all mentioned since August - 81 to December - 2000. On the contrary, the PartyNo.1 also produced the copy of application filed by thisParty No. 2 dated 27-6-95. This application was filed by the Party No. 2 as per advertisement of the Party No. 1 for the post of cook wherein he has contended that he is. working in officers' mess. From the document itself appears that on one hand , he is claiming that he is employee of the Party No. 1 and on the other hand, document itself shows that he had applied for the post of cook in the establishment of the Party No. 1. Contrary statement of Party No. 2 itself shows that he was not the employee of the Party No. 1 . The certificate Exh . U- 8 issuedby the Mess Secretary, not inthe capacity of the Party No. 1. The documents on record shows that the Party No. 2 used to do the work in mess which is run by the association of officers and not by the PartyNo.1.
6. Heard Smt . Dasare , Adv . for the Party No. 2 and Shri Gugale for Party No. 1. It is argued by Adv . Dasare that the Party No. 2 has proved that he is employee of the Party No. 1. He proved the said facts by adducing oral and documentary evidence . She invited my attention on document, Exh . U -8 . It is the certificate issuedby the Party No.1 to Party No.2 contending that he was working in VRDE officers mess since 1983. As against this , the counsel for the Party No.1 argued that the certificate was issued for filing the application for the post of cook in the establishment of canteen of the Party No.1 because the Party No.2 was working in officers mess and not in the employment of the canteen run by the Party No.1 and relied on AIR 1995 SC . 1666 wherein it is held that, " Co- operative Society or contractor managing the canteen was only
8. I have discussed above that the PartyNo.1 is under the control ofMinistry of Defence , Government of India, which does not include under the definition of workman . The Party No. 2 fails to establish that he is employee of the Party No.1 and his services has been terminated illegally by the Party No. 1 as claimed . Hence , he is not entitled to claim any relief of reinstatement with continuity of service .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Hence , I answer Issue No.1 to 3 accordingly and proceed to pass the following award.
AWARD
1. The reference is hereby answered in the negative .
2. Four copies of award be sent to the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour/ Shram Mantralaya , Shram Shakti Bhawan , Rafi Marg , New Delhi - 110001 for information and necessary action.
A.A. KHAN, Presiding Officer , Ahmednagar. Dated: 7-10-2006
नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5071.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/258/2001- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006 S.O. 5071. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006.
[No. L-40012/258/2001 - IR (DU)]
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT BANGALORE Dated: 21st November 2006
PRESENT
Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 1/2002
IIPARTY
IPARTY
The Supdt. ofPost Shri Shankar Vishnupanth :
Offices,
Despande,
: Post and Telegraphs, S/o . Shri Vishnupanth
: DivisionBagalkot, Despande,
: Bagalkot-587101 Ravalgalli, Rabkavi P.O,
: Karnataka State .
Jamkhandi Taluk,
Bagalkot-587101
Kamataka State .
3916 G1/06-31
10939
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
APPEARANCES
: Shri V. S. Naik , Advocate .
1stParty
: Shri K. Prakash Rao , Advocate. 2ndParty
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of Section10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorder . No. L-40012/258/2001 - IR (DU) dated 18th December, 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of management of Supdt. of Post offices, Bagalkot in terminating the services of the applicant workman Shri Shankar Vishnupanth Despande w.c.f. 20-10-2000 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitfed?"
2.The caseofthe first party workman as made out in hisClaim Statement, briefly, stated is that the management initially had taken him on daily wage basis at their establishments coming under the jurisdiction of the Sub- Divisional Inspector (P) , Jamakhandi in various capacities and infact he was appointed during the year 1986 and used towork as a Packer , Stamp Vendor and also in the office of theBank Posts Master (BPM) . He was also attending the work of delivery of telegrams on several occasions and was being paid salary on daily wage basis and the management managed to see that he does not get the benefit of continuity of service , allowing him to work only intermittently. However, he worked at different places for about 20 days in a month and some times through out the month on the assurance given by the management that his services will be regularized; that he was made to work continuously from 29-7-1999 to the post of Packer at Rabkavi PostOffice on regular basis drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2300 including the Basic Pay and Dearness Allowance . He worked continuously till 20th October 2000 and to his shock and surprise he was refused employment on 21-10-2000 only on the ground that a lady candidate has been appointed to his place and he need not report for dutyany more; that there was no notice or any memo issued tohim by the management in this regard and therefore, the action of the management refusing him employment was illegal andunjust and arbitrary . He further contended that heworked for more than 240 days continuously preceding the date on which he was refused employment and therefore , the action of the management amounts to termination rather illegal retrenchment as defined under Section2(00) of the ID Act read with Section 25F thereof; that the management during the conciliation proceedings admitted that the first party worked with it and that as per theEDA(Conduct and Service) Rules , 1964 if any employee works more than 3 years continuously on stop gap/ provisional basis he will be absorbed without the formalities . However, thecontention of the management that first party worked only for 18 months was false and incorrect as he 10940
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
continuously upto 21-10-2000 for more than 240 days in each year . It was elicited from him that no notice was given to the first party while terminating his services .
worked from 1986 to October 2000 continuously qualifying service condition of 3 years to be entitled for absorption and therefore, the management adopted unfair labour practice and terminated the service of the first party illegally and hence he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all attended benefits .
5.The first party as a rebuttal filed his own affidavit by way of examination chief reiterating almost all the relevant averments made by him in his Claim Statement. In his cross examination he admitted that he has no documents to show that he was under the service of the management from 1986 to 28.7.1999 and that no appointment letter was given to him in writing . He denied the suggestion that he did not work continuously but intermittently and that it was on temporary basis . He admitted that there was no notification of filling up of the post and he has not given any application seeking the job and his job was subject to theappointment of regular employee .
6.Learned counsel for the first party Shri Ramesh for Shri V.S. Naik vehemently argued that the management in its objection statement filed to IA for production of certain documents in very clear words admitted that the first party was under his service from 29-7-1999 till 21-10-2000 but denied the fact that he was in the service from 1986 on wards . He contended that management failed to produce the attendance register as well as the treasury cash book for the period from 1986 to October 2000 though these documents presumed to be in the custody of the management as per the very statement of MW1 therefore , adverse inference is to be drawn against the management holding that the first party was in its service from 1986 onwards . His next contention was that when undisputedly the first partywas in the service of the management atleast from the month of July 1999 till the month of October2000 continuously, then it goes without saying that he completed period of 240 days service continuously and therefore, his termination not being in compliance of Section 25F of the 10 Act , termination amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 ( 00 ) of the ID Act and is liable to be set aside .
3. The management by its Counter Statement however , contended that it is engaged in communication service as a sovereign function of the state and it is held by their Lordship of Supreme Court in many decisions that the management is not an ' Industry' and no weightage shall be given to the past service rendered as substitute or in provisional capacity . The management then contended that during the year 1999 one post of extra departmental delivery agent fell vacant at Rabakavi Post Office under Superintendent of post offices , Bagalkot Division on account on account of promotion of the incumbent as Grade 'D' and since the post could not be kept vacant , in the public intercst, the management engaged the services of the first party workınan only as a stop gap arrangement making him very clear that he will have not right to regular appointment ; that filling of vacant post on short term stop gap arrangement is in practice as per rules/norms recognized by the statute and therefore , the workmen whose services were engaged under that category cannot claim any right of regularization of their services; that the management appointed one Smt . Kasturi Patil as ED Packer, Rabakavi Post officer on 21-10-2000 on compassionate ground and subsequent to her appointment , the work of the first party dislodged (discontinued) . Therefore , the management contended that it is not an institution coming under the definition of ' industry ' and in the result provisions of ID Act are not applicable to the present case . The management denied the contention that the first party worked for a period of 14 ycars and that the inanagement admitted before the conciliation officer that he could have been absorbed in service without complying with the formalities required for the purpose of regular appointment . The managcinent ultimately requested this tribunal to reject the reference.
4. During the course of trial , the management on its bchalf examined one Mr. S.L. Hotkar , said to be the Superintendent of Post Offices working under the managements as MWI and this witness in his affidavitby way of examination chief just repeated the various contentions taken by the management in the counter statement . In his further examination chief two documents were marked at EX.MI & M2 relating to the appointment of said Smt . Kasturi Patil . In his cross examination he admitted that the first party worked with the management as a Packer , Stamp Vendor and for delivery of telegrams which work is permanent in nature and it is against the vacant post, the first party was taken but on temporary basis , that too , on his own request as no procedure was required to take him on temporary basis . He however , denied the suggestion that the first party was taken in service in 1986 and worked
7. Whereas , learned counsel for the management argued that first of all the very reference on hand is not maintainable as the management is not an industry as defined under Section 2(j ) of the ID Act and the first party is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s ) of the ID Act and therefore , provisions of Section 25F read with Section 2(00) of the ID Act are not applicable to the present case. His contention is that the first party was taken into service on provisional basis when the post of extra departmental delivery agent fell vacant consequent upon promotion of incumbent as Group ' D ' and his services came tobe discontinued on the appointment ofSmt . Kasturi Patil as ED Packer on compassionate ground . He contended that since services of the first party were engaged on temporary basis/provisional basis subject to appointment ofa regular ED Packer and has been discontinued on such anappointment , he cannot have any grievance against the management particularly , when the provisions of ID Act [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10941 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
under section 2 (j ) of the ID Act . In Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association case similar view was taken by the two judge bench of Supreme Court observing that if the doctrine enunciated inBangalore Water Supply case is strictly applied, the consequence is ' catastrophic ' . Their Lordship of Supreme Court presided over by three judges in the said Telecom case while referring to the saidBangalore Water Supply case ruled that the decision in the said Theyyam Joseph case and Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association case cannot be treated as laying down the correct law. The bench decided that the management of Telecom in the aforesaid case was an ' Industry' and the respondents in the said case fell under the category of ' workman' as defined under Section 2(s) ofthe ID Act. Therefore , the learned counsel for the first party relying upon the aforesaid decision in Telecom case argued that the management of Postal Department in this case is an ' Industry ' and the first party as a'workman' under the ID Act .
are not applicable to his case . He contended that when undisputedly the first party was engaged on provisional basis during the months of July 1999 and October 2000, there was no necessity for the management to have produced the treasury cash book from 1986 onwards and attendance register since was not maintained for such a temporary employee , therefore, not produced by the management and therefore , question of drawing any adverse inference does not arise . On the point that services ofthe first party have been terminated legally, he being a temporary employee working on provisional basis, learned counsel referred to a decision of Divisional Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in Writ petition Nos . 21331-333/00 dated 18th August 2001. On the point that management is not an Industry, learned counsel referred to the awarded dated 3-2-2006 in CR No. 52/92 passed by this tribunal. On the point that burden of proof was cast on the first party that he was in the service of the management continuously from 1986 onwards , he took support of the Principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case reported in 2005 SC cases (L & S ) 609 Manager RBI , Bangalore V.S.S. Maney & others .
8. After having gone through the records , I find substance in the arguments advanced for the management.
9. First of all, I would like to take up the legal question raised by the management as to whether it comes under the definition of an industry giving jurisdiction to this tribunal to entertain the present reference . In the reference case in CR No. 52/92 referred to supra , where the management involved was a postal department, similar contention was taken by the management that it does not fall under the definition of an Industry and this tribunal ( the undersigned) after having considered the respective contentions of the parties upheld the contention of the management giving its reasonings at Para 13 and 14 of the award passed in the said case (relevant for the purpose) running as under :--
"Whereas, it is the case of the first party that the management is an Industry and he is a ' workman' as defined under Section 2( s ) of the ID Act and therefore irrespective of above said Rule 6 of Conduct and Service Rules , his services could not have been terminated ignoring the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act . His further contention is that even otherwise the foundation of termination order since was the alleged unauthorized absence of the first party amounting to misconduct , a departmental enquiry was must holding him guilty of the misconduct so as to terminate his services . A perusal of the decision in the above said General Manager , Telecom case ( Para 5) it can be seen that their Lordship of Supreme Court in the said Theyyam Joseph case held that the functions of the Postal Department are part of the sovereign functions of the state and therefore , not an ' Industry' as defined
As against this , learned counsel for the management is to contend that in the aforesaid General Manager, Telecom case anotification dated 11-12-1979 issuedby the Govt. of India and the office memorandum was not considered and therefore , their Lordship of Supreme Court in the above said Umesh Koraga Bhandari case referred the matter for hearing by three judges bench after having referred to above said Theyyam Joseph case and Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees Association case as well asGeneral Manager , Telecom case . Therefore , the principle laid down in the aforesaid GM Telecom case will not be helpful to the case of the first party . I find substance in the said contention ofthe management. The principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the above said GM Telecom case, in my humble opinion are not applicable to the present case . Undisputedly there was no adjudication of the question whether the holders of civil posts could move CGIT or the only forum to seek relief was the Administrative Tribunal . The effect of notification in office memorandum referred to supra and Rule 6 of aforesaid Conduct and Service Rules were also not considered in the said case . As contended for the management in the aforesaid GM Telecom case the management happened to be Telecom department and whereas , in the aforesaid Theyyam Joseph case the management happened to be the Postal Department. The management in the above Umesh Koraga Bhandari case again happened to be a Telephone Nigam Limited . It is notice dispute that there are no employees like ED agents existed in the Department ofTelecom which posts were existing in the Department of Post. Therefore , the decision laid down in the above said General Manager Telecom case holding it to be an 'Industry' will not be applicable to the management in the instant case which happerred to be the Department of Post .
10942
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]
the first party, of course , without giving any reasons . As noted above , his services could have been terminated without giving any reason if he had not completed 3 years continuous service as on the date of termination order . In the instant case admittedly he did not complete period of 3 years continuous service on the date termination order was passed . That apart as noted above , Clause 4 of the appointment Order was very clear on the point that services ofthe first party as a ED Packer were liable to terminated under the aforesaid (Conduct and Service) Rules as amended from time to time . Therefore, the contention taken bythe first party that the management is an ' Industry ' and he is a ' workman ' under the provisions of ID Act and therefore, histermination amounts to illegal retrenchment there being no compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act must fail and in the result the decisions cited on behalf of the first party on the said point will not be helpful to his case.His contention that termination order is punitive in nature attaching stigma is again not tenable for the simple reason that the termination order has not even referred to hisunsatisfactory work during the service and was just based upon Rule 6 ofthe above said (Conduct and Service) Rules . Absolutely no adverse remark was made in the termination order . His contention that there should have beena departmental enquiry as termination order was based on his alleged unauthorized absence/amountingto misconduct again must fail keeping in view the aforesaid Rule 6 of the (Conduct and Service) Rules invoking which termination order was passed . Therefore, in the light of the above, it must be held that the management was justified in terminating the services of the first party w.e.f. 12-3-1986.
10. Therefore, in the light of the reasonings already recorded by this tribunal on the point in question , I need not repeat the same once again in this case and in the result , I must record the finding to the effect that the management is not an Industry as defined under Section 2(j)ofthe IDAct .
11. Now coming to the merits of the case , it is no doubt admitted by the management by way of objection statement to the IA filed by the first party and in the statement of MW1 itself that first party has been in the service of the management continuously from the month ofJuly 1999 till October 2000 and therefore , as argued for the first party he must have completed continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year before he was refused employment . However , in the face of the finding already recorded above , when the management does not fit into the definition of an Industry , it goes without saying that the provisions of ID Act are not applicable to the present case. Therefore, question of the termination of the first party being in violation of provisions of Section 25F read withSection 2(00) of the ID Act does not arise at all and it cannot be therefore , said that it was a case of illegal retrenchment amounting to illegal termination . The That department of Post in fact was involved in the above said Theyyam Joseph case and their Lordship have held the view that it is not an ' Industry' . Therefore, the principle laid down in the said Theyyam Joseph case must apply to the case on hand . That apart, in a subsequent decision of theirLordship of Supreme Court reported in 1998 Supreme Court case ( L& S ) 447 in Union of India and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad , we have got a very clear and unequivocal answer in deciding the controversy over the point in question . It was a case involving the post of Extra Departmental Agent as in the present case and their Lordship held the view that Extra Departmental Agent is a Government Servant holding a Civil Post and is entitled to protection of Article 311 (2) of Constitution of India . Their Lordship further observed that the aforesaid Conduct and Service Rules 1964 are a complete code goverming service, conduct and disciplinary proceedings against ED Agents . In fact in this case the party concemed had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No.177 /91 and the learned CAT had entertained the dispute which meansto say that CAT was a proper forum to adjudicate the dispute raised by the ED Agent, he being a Civil Servant and that such a dispute cannot be raised before the CGIT. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decision therefore shall apply to the instant case on all its fours and if we go by the principle laid down in the said decision , once again , rendered by their Lordship of Supreme Court , it can never be said that the Postal Department is an ' Industry' as defined under Section 2 (j ) and the first party is a ' workman ' as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. It becomes crystal clear from the observations made in the said decision that the aforesaid rules namely, the Post and Telegraph Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules1964 are complete code goveming service conduct and disciplinary proceedings against EDAs . The aforesaid rules were not under consideration by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the aforesaid GM Telecom case . Therefore , on this count also principle laid down in the said case will not come to the rescue of the first party in this case . It is in this view of the matter , one must attach due weight to the contention taken by the management that it was justified in terminating the services of the first party invoking Rule 6 of the above said (Conduct and Service )Rules and in the light of the very terms of appointment order issued to the first party . During 1988 the un - amended provision of Rule 6 provided a power to the appointing authority to terminate the services of ED Packer (ED agent) who has not rendered more than 3 years continuous service without any notice . The implication of amendment of Rule ( Service.and Conduct) was to see that order for termination of service may not require any reasons to indicate but in cases of unsatisfactory service or for administrative reasons unconnected with the conduct, termination can be effected under the Rule 6 of the said Rules . In the instant case as noted above , the management invoking the above said Rule 6 terminated the services of 10943 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
on hand does not merit consideration and therefore, liable tobe dismissed andhence the following Award:
AWARD
The reference stands dismissed. No costs .
(Dictated to PA Jranscribed by her corrected and signed by meon 21st November, 2006 )
A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ . 5072.-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 नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 108/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/230/2002- आई. आर. (डी.यू.) ]
सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006
S.O. 5072.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 108/2003) 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 Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on8-12-2006.
[No. L-40012/230/2002 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Dated:30-11-2006
Case No. 106/2003
Sh . Abdul Rashid Khan,
Petitioner
S/o Sh . Nizar Ahmed, C/o . Abdul Mateen, Vill. Udhan Khedi, Tah . Sarangpur, Rajgarh.
Versus
Respondent
The Telecom District Engineer, O/o The TDE, BSNL, Rajgarh -465674 .
AWARD
contention of the first party that since he completed service of more than 3 years beginning from the year 1986 and since the management before the conciliation officer took up the contention that in case the employee completes the continuous service of 3 years on stop gap (provisional basis) he will be entitled to be absorbed in service does not merit consideration as the management has disputed the factthat the first party was in its service from 1986 onwards . The first party has not produced any document and on the other hand in his cross - examination as noted above , he in uncertain words admitted that he has no documents to show that he was under the service of the management from 1986 onwards . As per his own admission he has no letter of appointment in writing . That apart, in his claim statement itself as brought on record above, he has come out with the case that earlier to July, 1999 he was being engaged by the management intermittently and not continuously . That apart , as laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the above said RBI case, the burden of proofthat first party was in the service of the management right from the year 1986 up till October, 2000 was cast upon the first party himself. In a case reported in (2004) 107 FJR 264 SC-Rajasthan State Ganganagar Mills Ltd V/s. State of Rajasthan . Their Lordship of Supreme Court held the view that "mere non -production of muster roll by the cmployer for a particular period is not sufficient for a labour court to hold that workman had worked for 240 days as claimed . On the same analogy the non - production of treasury cash book and the attendance register by the management therefore, cannot give rise to any adverse inference to be drawn against the management. It was for the first party to have substantiated his claim independently that he worked under the management from 1986upto tillOctober 2000 and thereby he was eligible to be absorbed in services of the management having completed 3 years of period as per EDA ( Conduct and Service) Rules 1964. Moreover , we are not concerned here about his right for regularization but about the alleged termination. Moreover , it is not disputed by the first party anywhere that he was working as ED Packer though against the permanent post , it being vacant on account of promotion ofthe employee holding it and the fact that said Sint. Kasturi Patil having been appointed to the said post, his services were discontinued. This undisputed fact must lead to the inference that the services of the first party were being engaged by the management as a stop gap/ provisional basis as regular employee holding the saidpost of EDA have become vacant on account of promotion. Therefore , as argued for the management, even if, the first party had worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more between July, 1999 and October , 2000, his services could have been discontinued, he being engaged by the management on provisional basis irrespective of the provisions of Section 25F read with Section 2(00 ) of the 1.D. Act , as laid by our Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, Inthe result, viewed from any angle reference
1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Sh . Abdul Rashid Khan S/o Sh. Nizar Ahmed, Party No.1 and The Telecom District Engineer, O/o The TDE, BSNL, Rajgarh -465674 PartyNo. 2referredthe same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letterNo. L-40012/230/2002- IR (DU) dt . 11-03-2003 under clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule.
10944
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
Harvinder Singh C/ o Shri S. D. Aggarwal , House No. 3115 , Sector 38 -D, Chandigarh
...Petitioner
Versus
2. "Whether the action of the management of Telecom District Engineer, Rajgargh in terminating the .services of She Abdul Rashid Khan S/ o She Nizar Ahmed w.c.f. 30-9-2000 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for"
The Senior Supdt . of Post Offices , Patiala Division (Punjab)
...Respondent
APPEARANCES
For theWorkman : Mr. R.P Rana, AR
FortheManagement : Shri H.C Arora, AR
AWARD
3. The reference has been received to this office in the year 2005. The notices of it were issued to the parties on 31-5-2005 . The respondent appeared and filed its authority on 26-7-2005. However , from 26-07-2005 nobody appeared before the court till today. Even the Statement of claim is not filed upto September 2006. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested and he is not taking any steps. Hence it is disposed of for default of the petitioner i.e. for his absence and not taking any steps or filing the statements ofclaim.
The following reference was made by the Central Govt. for the adjudication by this Tribunal vide their No. L-40012/80/95 - IR (DU) dated 27th June, 1996:--
4. Hence it is dismissed for the default of the petitioner for not filing of the Statement of Claim . Thus the award.
"Whether the action of the management of Post Offices interminating the services of Shri Harvinder SinghEDPacker is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to? "
A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2006
The notice of reference was given to the parties who appeared through their Counsel but not regularly. The workman filedhis Claim Petition , to which the Management filed the reply. The workman filed the rejoinder and his affidavit, whereas the Management filed the affidavit of Shri M.K Khan as their witness . The workman as well as the witness of the Management also came in the witness box and answered the questions put to them in the cross- examination.
का.आ. 5073.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक 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, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 666/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -40012/80/95- आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिह , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006
S.O. 5073. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 666/ 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 Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006 .
[No. L -40012/80/95-IR (DU))
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The claim of the workman is that he was appointed asExtraDepartmental Packer in Manakpur Sub office on 12th May, 1993, on regular basis under ED rules 1964, in place of Shri Sadhu Singh, who had resigned from the post vide the order ofAssistant. Supdt. of Post Offices Rajpura Sub Division. He worked for the Mariagement upto 19th July, 1994 and his services were terminated without any notice and without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act , hereinafter to be referred as"Act", that since the termination of the workman was by a verbal order and was not as a matter of punishment , therefore, was in violation of provisions of Section 2 (00) of the Act; that the workman had served the management for 240 days before the termination of his services as his emoluments were drawned from 12th may, 1993 to 19th July, 1994 which supports his claim. The workman has prayed for declaring the termination of his services as bad in law and for the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and all service benefits .
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOURCOURT - IL, CHANDIGARH
Presiding Officer : Shri Kuldip Singh
CASE NO . I.D.No. 666/2005 .
Registered on 25-08-2005
Date of Decision 9-11-2006 .
The Management, by their Written Statement has contested the claim of the workman . It is their case that the workman was engaged temporally on 19th May, 1993 on the sudden resignation of Sadhu Singh a Extra Departmental Packer. The engagement of the workman was done without following the procedure and it was also done with the understanding that the engagement of the workman was [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपन्न : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
10945
that he was 8th Standard pass at the relevant time ; and that he has not given the certificate of birth nor the same was demanded. He further claims that he is working as Agriculturist that he is now earning Rs. 1000 to 1500 a month . Shri M.K Khan , the witness of the management , in hisstatement deposed that he did not know if one month's noticewas given to the workman at the time of termination ofhis services . He admitted that the workman had worked regularly from 12th May, 1993 to 19th July, 1994; and that no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman.
purely temporary and provisional which could beterminated at any time without assigning any reason. Moreover , no doubt the qualification for engagement as Extra Departmental Packer was middle pass , but the preference was to be given to a matriculate . The workman , however , could not produce any proof to show that he was a middle pass . Therefore , the termination of his services was justified . Even otherwise a person appointed on any job without following the due procedure, did not enjoy a right to hold that post and could be terminated to any time as is ruled by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Brij Bhushan V/ s Industrial Tribunal , 1998(3) AEJ 322. The workman could also not claim any preference for recruitment on regular basis on the plea of his having served in the stop gap arrangement in view of the judgement in the case of DM Nagesh and Others V/ s Assistant Supdt . of Post Offices, Bangalore (2004) APJ 2009. The management has also claimed that they are not an Industry.
Onmerit it is submitted by the management that the workman had failed to produce the proof of his age and education qualification, therefore , no notice was required to be issued to him . Even in terms of the order of engagement, his services could be terminated at any time. The services of the workman were terminated for his failure to produce the proof of his age and qualification . Moreover the case of the workman was covered by Section 2 (00) (bb).Admitting that the workman was paid for the period he served the management , the Management contested the claim made by the workman in other paras and stated that those paras did not require any reply. They in the end requested that the statement of the claim of the workman be rejected.
From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties and their evidence it is proved that the workman had served the Management continuously from 12th May, 1993 till 19th July, 1994. In this regard the statement of Shri Khan is crystal clear . It is also made out from his statement that the workman was not paid retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of his services . He also could not say whether one month's notice was given to the workman before the termination of his services . The Management in their Written Statement did not claim that before terminating' the services of the workman they had issued him one months notice or had the paid the wages for the notice period. In para 2 of their reply they stated that since the workman had failed to produce the proof of his age and educational qualification, therefore , he was disengaged and in those circumstance there was no requirement to give him notice as he was required to fulfill the requirements of his appointment order dated 25th October , 1993.The Management has not placed on record the order , which, according to them , was issued on 25th October, 1993 , appointing the workman . On the other hand their own witness M.K Khan admitted that the workman had served from 12th May, 1993 to 19th July, 1994. Thus the order referred to by the workman appears to be a myth and not a reality as neither the workman was appointed on 25th October nor it is shown as to what was the occasion for the Management to issue that order on that day .
The workman filed rejoinder to the reply of the management and reiterated the facts stated in the Claim Statement. He submitted that he was duly recommended by the Employment Exchange and he had submitted the employment card to the Management ; that he was told that he is heing appointed against the permanent post . The Management had followed the proper procedure in making his appointment under rules . He denied that his appointment was stop gap arrangement . He also denied the claim made by the Management and stated that the law referred by them is not applicable to the case. According to him the termination of his services amounted to retrenchment, therefore , the workman is entitled to the relief claimed. According to him the Management is an Industry as is held in the case of Harishankar and others V/s Union ofIndia, 1990 (3SLLJ -CAT-195) and Rajinder Kumar Sharma V/sUnion of India 1994(3) SLJ -CAT-228.
There is admission of the Management that the workman had served the management from 12th May, 1993 to 19th July, 1994 continuously , therefore , for whatever reason they wanted to disengaged the workman , it was required ofthemto have followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act . The Management has failed to prove that : they had followed the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act, before the disengagement of the workman on 19th July, 1994. Thus the order of termination passed by the Management was bad in law. The plea taken by the management that since the workman did not fulfill the requirement of his appointment order , such as the requirement of showing that he was middle pass and was within the age required for the recruitment is not available to them. Their plea that the workman was not appointed by a regular process, therefore, he had no right to hold the post from which he was disengaged is also of no consequence. Inthis reference the Tribunal is not required As stated earlier the workman filed his affidavit and the Management filed the affidavit of their witness and both workman and the witness of the management appeared in the witness box . The workman when cross examined admitted that he had not received any interview card nor anybody else was appointed alongwith him. He claimed
i [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10946
to examine whether the workman was entitled for regularization on the post or not? What I am required to find out is whether the disengagement of the workman, Harvinder Singh, from service on 19th July, 1994 was legal and justified . In my opinion it was not legal and justifiedas the Manageinent did not follow the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, before terminating the services of the workman . His disengagement was , therefore , bad in law and the same is quashed . He is treated to be in services as if there was no order of his disengagement, passed by the management .
Now the question comes as to what relief the workman is entitled to. I find that the workman was quite conscious of his right, therefore, due to his efforts the reference was made within less than two years , for adjudication after going through all the process of issuance of demand notice , the holding of the conciliation proceedings and then the consideration of appropriate Govt . for issuance of the reference . The workman admitted thathe is carning 1000 to 1500 Rs . per month from agriculture and has remained unemployed. Thus the workman did not remain altogether idle during the period in this between. Since his termination has been quashed, therefore, he is entitled to back wages and in the circumstances of the case is entitledto wages to supplement his income, as ifhe was still in service . Therefore , in my opinion the workman is entitled to back wages to the tune of 50 %from the date of termination of his services . He is also entitled to all service benefits including continuity of service as if there was no order of his disengagement . The reference made in this case is answered accordingly and the award is passed in favour of the workman . 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, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ. 5074. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ।4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थन रीजन फॉर्म इंस्ट्रूमेंट टेस्टिंग इंस्टिटयूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 428/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -42012/ 14/91- आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006 S.O. 5074.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.428/ 2005) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Northern Region Farm Instrument Testing Instt . and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 8-12-2006.
[No.L-42012/ 14/91 -IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI KULDIP SINGH CASE NO.ID.No 428/2k5.
Registered on 19-08-2005
Date ofDecision 10-11-2006 .
Rameshwas Dass S/o Shri Amar Singh C/o the President , DistrictAgriculture Union Worker, VPO Kheri Barki (Hissar)
...Petitioner
Versus
Director Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Hissar- 125001
...Respondent
APPEARANCE
For the Workman : Shri . Darshan Singh AR
For the Management : Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate .
AWARD
The Govt. of India vide their notification No. L-42012/ 14/91 - IR (DU ) dated 20th Sept, 1991 referred the following dispute for the adjudication to this Tribunal.
"Whether the action of the Management of Northern Region Farm Instrument Testing Institute . Hissar in terminating the services of Sh. Rameshwar Dass S/o Sh . Athar Singh , Casual Chowkidar is justified? If not to what relief is the workınan concerned entitled?"
After the receipt of notification the notices were issuedto the parties who appeared through their counsels and representatives . The workman filed his statement of claim, towhich the Management filed the Written statement . TheManagement then amended their W/S . The workman filed his affidavit and also placed on record documents exhibited W2 to W4 . Management also filed the affidavit of their witness H.C. Luthra and that of A.S. Narayanan . The Management also produced the documents M - 1 to M- 11 . Exhibit M -4 has been marked on both affidavits of Sh . H.C. Luthra and K.S. Narayanan . The perusal of the affidavits shows that the contents of the affidavits also the same except the name of the deponents . The workman appeared as a witness and proved his affidavit . It is to be noted here that the statement made by him has not been signed by him although on his statement his representative [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
Darshan Singh signed on the same page closing the evidence of workman . This lends support to the view that the statement was made by the workman, but due to over- sight or lapse on the part of the clerk recording the statement his signature were not obtained on the statement. There is another support to this view from the interim order recordedby the P.O. , which reads that the statement ofthe workman was recorded on that and he closed his evidence on same day.
The claim of the workman is that he was appointed as a Security Guard by the Management in Dec., 1982 and he served them upto 2-5-86, in the pay scale of Rs . 300-430 which was subsequently revised to Rs . 750-940 w.e.f. 1-1- 86; that the services of the workman were terminated without assigning any reason or charge sheet and without following the provisions of Sections 25F& G of the ID.Act, hereinafter to be referred as "Act " . The workman prayed for his reinstatement with back wages , continuity of services and costs .
The Management has opposed the claim of the workman . As per their amended statement which was filed on 14-5-93 , the claim of the workman was not maintainable since the Management was a Department of India and was not an Industry as defined by the Act. According to them the workman was engaged as DPL in the Security Unit in their Institute w , c.f 27-3-85 and he was disengaged on 16-5-95 along with another DPL, vide their order No. 23-6/ 85 -DPL dated 15-5-85 for lack of Job . On 11-7-85 the workman gave in writing that he is ready to work as per the requirement ofthe Management . In May 1986 the workman was shifted from security to Farm Security due to lack of sanction and was engaged on daily wages at the rate of Rs . 15.73 per day and not in the scale as is claimed .
Inthe reply of para No. 2 of the claim statement, it is submitted by the Management that they had given alternative job to the workman but all in vain. He was also served with one month's notice and instead of reporting for duty he made allegation by his application dated 26-10-89 the matter was considered by the ALC, Chandigarh. The Parties agreed to that workman be re- engaged on his furnishing assurance that he will work honestly and shall also exhibit good conduct . He will not be entitled to back wages . There - upon the workman was asked to report for duty as a Farm Labourer, but he did not join his duties even after a reminderdt . 19-12-86 . Thereupon the offer was cancelled . In the conciliation proceedings held on 6-12-86 the Management agreed to reinstate the workman as a daily wager but the workman demanded back wages and continuity in services . Continuity of services which benefit was not granted even to Saheb Lal and Sube Singh, who were re -employed as a result of settlement arranged by the ALC, Rohtak. Both those persons had also accepted the alternative job whereas the workman insisted upon his posting as a Security Guard which could not be accepted.
3916 GI/06-32-
10947
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Denying the claim of the workman ofhaving exhibited good work and conduct it is stated by the Management that the work and conduct of the workman was not upto the mark, therefore , it was incorporated in the settlement dated 19-12-86 that on re -engagement the workman shall assure in writingthat he will work honestly and his conduct willbe good. The workman in his application dated 12-11- 86 stated he will not commit the mistakes in future and for the previous ones he begs the pardon. The Management has further claimed that they had made all possible efforts to provide alternative job to the workman but he insisted uponthejob of Security Guard which could not be provided tohim for lack ofjob. They offered to provide the job of Farm Labourerto the workman provided he does not insist upon the back wages and continuity of services . In that eventuality his petition may be dismissed.
The workman proved his affidavit exhibit W - 1 as correct. Intheaffidavit he claims that he was appointed as a Security Guard in Dec. 1982 and his services were terminated on 2-5-86 since he had filed a case against the Management . The Management terminated his services and retained his juniors . They did not pay him any retrenchment compensation nor they followed the provisions of Sections 25- F G & H of the Act. Therefore , the action of the Management was illegal, unjustified and without jurisdiction .
TheManagement cross-examined the workman and in the cross - examination he admitted that he was not given any appointment letter. He denied that he had joined the service on 27-3-85 , but admitted that his services were dis- engaged on 16-5-85 . He also admitted the conciliation held in which settlement, Exhibit M - 1 , was arrived at . He denied that he had not performed the job for 289 days in 12 months proceeding the date of his disengagement or that the Management had not engaged fresh hands after his disengagement. He admitted having received Exhibit M- 2, buthad sent reply exhibit M - 3 . He further denied that he is entitled to back wages by M-3 or that the Management is not an industry . This is in substance the claim of the workman.
Document M -1 is on record the contents of which are admittedby the workman as correct . In this document there isnothing to show as to from which date to which date the workman had served the Management . It only reads that on a dispute between the parties a conciliation was arrived atbetween them on the indulgence of the ALC, Chandigarh , on 12th November , 1986. It was agreed to between the parties that the worknian shall be re - engaged within 15 days from that day provided if he assured to work honestly exhibiting good conduct . It was also decided that the workman shall not get any back wages . The compliance repon was to be sent by the parties . The settlement was signed by the workman the Director of the Management, besides the representative of the workman Darshan Singh a witness and the ALC. This document does not show as 10948
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] to when the workman was engaged and when the services were terminated . Documents M -2 is on record . By this document the workman was engaged as Farm Mazdoor on daily wages on 12th Nov. , 1986. He was to report for duty by 27thNovember , 1986. Thus the Management complied with the terms of the settlement arrived on 12th Nov. , 1986. But the workman by his letter dated 18th Dec. , 1986 informed the Director of the Management that the order of his appointment dated 12th November, 1986 was in violation of the provisions of the Act and that there is no mention in the order about his past services and the order does not secure his service , therefore , it was bad in law. He insisted upon that he should be taken back in service without any condition and he may also be paid the back wages and other benefits as he was entitled . The workman , therefore , refused to comply with the order issued by the Management on 12th November, 1986. If we look at M- 1 there is nothing to show that any such agreement had been made between the parties that they will take back the workman without conditions ; and that the workman shall also be entitled to the back wages and the continuity of service . The workman , however , did not raise those objections at the time the agreement was arrived at between the parties on 12th Nov. , 1986. If he was not satisfied with the settlements , which bound the parties , he should have challenged the sarne or got the same scrapped.
The workman , in support of his claim produced documents W-2 , W -3 and W- 4. W-2 is the letter of administrative Officer by which the workman was directed to work in the Farm Section . W-3 is the letter which was addressed to the Regional Labour Commissioner and it was informed to him that the workman was engaged in pursuance of the settlement dated 12th Nov. , 1986 in the Security Section , but due to non- availability of the post, he was transferred to the Farm Section w.e.f. 5th August, 1989, but he did not report for duty . The Director sought direction to the workman to comply with the order . Exhibit W-4 is the representation of the workman addressed to the Director of the Management by which he reiterated his claim of his posting in the Security Section of the Management he further claimed that by transferring him to the Farm Section they have reduced his salary from Rs . 1005/- to Rs . 625/-. Moreover he has been made to work as a labourer which is not expected from a Security Guard. He informed the Director that in case his request is not accepted he will proceed under Law against him.
directed to comply with the terms of the settlement dated 12th November , 1986. Exhibits M- 7 A and 11 show that the workmandid not comply with the directions issued in terms ofthe settlement. From the representations of the workman and the documents produced by the Management it is clear that the Management had complied with the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties but the workman did not comply with it and opposed his engagement in the Farm Section on two grounds, firstly that it will reduce the amount of his salary and also the work allotted to him was not the similar as he had performed while in the service of the Management earlier. If we look at the terms of the settlement, there is nothing to show that the workman was assured that he will be engaged in the Security Section . I have already discussed the terms of the settlement dated 12th Nov. , 1986 which only reads that the workman shall be re - engaged on daily wages on his assuring that he will work honestly and shall exhibit good conduct. Neither in his statement nor by any document he has proved that he was given such a assurance . Secondly there is nothing to show that he was to be engaged in the Security Section . At the best he was to be engaged as a dailywager and the Management posted him by their order dated 12th Nov. , 1986. Therefore the insistence of the workman to be posted in the Security Section was not justified especially when he has failed to show that there were vacancies available in the Security Section where he could have been adjusted . He might have worked in the Security Wing earlier but there is nothing to show that his appointment was as a Security Guard . He has also not produced any evidence in support of his claim that hy his joining in the Farm Section his salary shall be reduced or that he was getting higher salary in the Security Section and will get lesser emoluments in the Farm Section . The claim of the workman that it was the Management which did not comply with the conditions of the settlement, is wrong and not proved. Now coming to the reference , made by the appropriate Govt . , I find that the workman has not produced any evidence to show that he had joined services withthe Management in December , 1982. The Management denied this claim. It is claimed by the workman that his services were terminated on 2nd May , 1986 , whereas , according to the Management, the services of the workman were disengaged on 16th May, 1985, for lack of job . As stated earlier the workman has not produced any evidence that there was a vacancy available on the day the services of the workman were terminated . The workman has not produced any evidence to show that he had served the Management for 240 days preceding the date of termination ofhis services on 16th May , 1985 as claimed by him in his statement dated 13th October , 1983. Thus I do not find any evidence to show that the Management had terminated the services of the workman in violation of the provisions of theAct; and that the termination was not justified. The workman has failed to produce any evidence to show that at the time of termination of his services , the Management Now, we turn towards the claim of the Management . They have denied that the workman was engaged in December , 1982 or that his work and conduct was satisfactory . They claimed that the workman had agreed to work . They have placed on record Exhibit M- 5 . According to this document the workman had agreed to work in the Farm of the Management and requested for engaging him in the Farm. Exhibit M - 10 is a direction from the ALC, Chandigarh to the workman by which the workman was 10949:
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
had violated the provisions of Section 25 -F,G and H as they had retained the juniors and terminated the services of the workman or that they had re- engaged persons who werejuniors to the workman without providing opportunity to the workman to work.
The cojoint reading of the evidence placed on record suggests that it was not the Management which had terminated the services of the workman , but it was the case ofabandonment by the workman as so long he was posted in the security wing, after the settlement he worked, but thereafter did not report for duty, despite repeated directions to him by the management and by the ALC, Chandigarh vide his letter dated 12th July , 1989. From the conduct of the workman it is shown that the workman wanted the nature of job of his choice and he refused to work as unskilled labour who could be assigned any job including the Farm working even when he had given in writing on 11th July, 1985 that he prays for providing him work and he is ready to work. At that time he did not state that he will work only in the Security Section and nowhere else . Thus the refusal of the workman to work in the Farm Section was unjustified and by doing so , he did not comply with the settlements arrived at between the parties . He has also not proved that he had put in 240 days regular service at the time he claims that the Management had terminated hisservices in the year 1985.
After appreciating all the evidence available on record I am of the opinion that the workman has failed to prove that he was engaged as a Casual Chowkidar and that the Management terminated his services , which action of theirs wasnotjustified. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In view of the discussion made above the reference is answered accordingly and the award is passed against the workman . 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, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006 का.आ.5075. 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 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 350/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/370/2000 - आई.आर. (डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 8th December, 2006 S.O.5075.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 350/ 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, which was received by the Central Government on8-12-2006.
[No. L-40012/370/2000- IR (DU) ]
SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer.
ANNEXURE
CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT-IL, CHANDIGARH
SHRI KULDIP SINGH PRESIDING OFFICER :
CASE NO.I.D.No 350/2k5 .
Registered on 16-08-2005
Date ofDecision 10-11-2006.
Lakhveer Singh C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, House No. 372, Sector20-a Chandigarh
Petitioner
Versus
TheChiefGeneral Manager , Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34, Chandigarh .
Respondent
APPEARANCE
For the Workman : MissRameet & others AR
Shri G. C. Babbar , Advocate .
For the Management :
AWARD
The workman contiunes to be absent . Management appears through Counsel . The workman was issued a notice under R/ C on the address available in the reference madeby the appropriate Govt . The R/C carrying the notice was received back with the report of postal authorities "Unclaimed" . There was another address of the workman available showing him to be the resident of District, Ropar. As a caution fresh notice was issued to him on that address on 1st Sep. , 2006 under dispatch No. 591. The notice has not been received back which also shows that the notice ofthe reference is received by the workman but he is not present . It has to be presumed that he has lost interest in the case therefore he is not appearing.
TheGovt. ofIndia vide their notification No. L-40012/ 370/2000/IR (DU ) dated 31st October , 2000 desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of Chief Manager Telecom Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom Chandigarh in ordering disengagement/termination of Shri Lakhveer Singh engaged through a contractor M/ s Gupta w.e.f. 27th Feb. , 1999was just and legal and if not to what relief the workman was entitled to.
After the notice was received the workman filed his claim petition to which the management has filed the reply duly suported by the order of CAT copy of the agreement . Theworkman filed rejoinder and his affidavit . Management [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10950
filed the affidavit of their witness and the case was awaiting the evidence of the parties when the workman stopped appearing in the case . Even earlier the workman was given notice under R/ C vide Postal Receipt No. 8499 dated 10th April , 2006 but that time also he did not appear in the case. It is in these circumstances the reference is being answered in the absence of the workman .
On record there is no evidence to support the claim of the workman that the management had terminated his services without following the provisions of law therefore his termination was bad in law . The pleadings of the parties and their affidavits cannot take the shape of proof since the contesting parties did not have the chance to test the affidavits on the touchstone of cross examination . If we exclude the affidavits there remains no evidence to support the claim of the workman that the management had terminated the services of the workman who was engaged through a contractor M/ s Gupta w.c.f. 27th Feb. , 1999 and there action was unjust and illegal . In view of this the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . Let a copy of this awardbe sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.
KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ.5076. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एयर फोर्स स्टेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1262/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/14/2005- आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006 S.O. 5076.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1262/ 2006) 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 Air Force Station and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006 .
[No. L- 14012/14/2005- 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 1262/2k6 .
Registered on 25-04-2006
Date ofDecision 10-11-2006 .
Darshan Singh S/o Shri Sarwan Singh C/o Shri N. K. Jeet, President Punjab Telecoment and General Labour Union- 27349, Mohalla Hari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road,
Bathinda
Petitioner
Versus
The Station Commander, Air Force Station , Bhissiana (Punjab )
Respondnet.
APPEARANCE
For the Workman : NEMO
For the Management : Shri D. C. Mittal, Advocate .
AWARD
The workman contiunes to be absent. The record or the file shows that he has not appeared in this tribunal on any date fixed . Ultimately a notice under R/C vide Postal Receipt No. 2263 dated 1st Sep. , 2006 was sent to him on the address available in the order of reference . More than 30days have passed but neither the R/C carrying the notice has been received back unserved nor the workman has appeared . This shows that the workman has received the summon but he has not appeared intentionally. During this period the workman has also not filed his Claim Petition. The Management appears through a Proxy Counsel who has not filed his letter of authority on record .
Since the workman has not appeared nor filed his Claim Petition and on record I do not find any evidence to show that the management has terminated the services of the workman Baldev singh without complying with the statutory provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 .
It is worth note here that in the reference the appropriate Govt. has desiredto adjudicate upon the reference relating to the termination of services of Shri Baldev Singh , Ex - Asamin Labour w.e.f. 10th Dec. , 2004 whereas the said Baldev Singh has not been given notice ofthe reference . The notice of reference has been given to one Darshan Singh S/o Sarwan Singh C/ O N. K Jeet, President Punjab Telecom and General Labour Union Bhatinda. Thus there is nothing in reference to co- rclate Darshan Singh and Baldev Singh whose services are said to have been terminated. In the circumstances the reference received vide order of Central Govt . NO . L- 14012/ 14/2005- IR(DU)) dated 12th April , 2006 cannot be answered appropriately and the same is returned to the Ministry for making necessary correction, if required . Otherwise the reference may be treated to have been answered against the workman . The award is passed . 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, [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10951
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
ofthe Labour Court, Ernakulam on the same issue, the present reference is barred by the principle of res judicata.
2. The Southern Railway Construction Workers Unionand Sri Ramankutty jointly filed writ petition as O.P. No. 16149 of 2000 challenging the above award and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by a brief judgement dt. 21-2-2006 set aside the award holding that:-
का.आ 5077 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिणी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पालाक्कड के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को07-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-41012/15/96- आई. आर. ( बी- I ) ]
अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006
S.O. 5077. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/ 2006 of the Industrial Tribunal , Palakkad now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman , which was receivedby the CentralGovernment on 07-12-2006.
[No. L-41012/ 15/96- IR (B -I)] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
"It is seen that the Tribunal misconstrued it as an individual dispute ignoring the fact that the same is raisedby the union. Ext. P3 report as well as Ext. P4 reference order would show. that the dispute is one raisedby the Union . Yet another ground referredto in the award is that there is already a finding with regard to the status of the workman in a proceedings under Section 33C( 2) of the I.D. Act. The order is produced as Ext. P2 in this writ petition. Apparently touching on the status only the dispute is now raised bytheUnion. Therefore, the approach in Ext . P2 shall not stand in the way of the Tribunal adjudicating the issue referred as per Ext. P4. I quash Ext . P6 . The matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal with a direction to adjudicate on the issue and pass an award on merits . Being an old matter the award shall be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement . " IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , PALAKKAD
(Monday, the 13th November, 2006/22nd Karthika 1928)
PRESENT
3. The Tribunal received a copy of the above judgement on 16-8-2006 and the dispute was re - registered as I.D. No. 46/2006(C) and heard in detail the parties concerned. The union filed some documents and the same weremarked as Ext. W5 to W11 . Some of these documents had already been produced by the workman marked as Exhibits during the first round of adjudication.
Sri . B. RANJIT KUMAR, Industrial Tribunal Industrial Dispute No.46/2006 (C) BETWEEN
TheExecutive Engineer ( Construction ) , Southern Railway, Podanur , (By Adv . T.R. Rajagopalan)
And
4. In view of the above judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, now the issue has to be considered on merit ignorning the jurisdictional points raised by the management .
Shri P. Ramankutty, C/ o . General Secretary , Southern Railway Construction Workers Union , Rly . Qrs . No. 116 -B , Cochin-16.
(By Sri . K. Robert D'Souza, General Secretary, Southern Railway Construction Workers Union , Kochi - 16)
AWARD
5. The contention of the workman as set out in the claim statementdt. 5-9-1997 and rejoinder dt. 30-3-98 is that he had continuously worked as a Casual Labourer Lascar in the construction wing of Southern Railway from 14-5-56 onwards and he is entitled to acquire temporary status w.e.f. 14-11-56 on completion of 180 days continuous service . It is further submitted on his behalf that his fellow worker, Sri . Robert D'Souza was granted temporary status as per the direction of the Supreme Court in the land mark judgment in Robert D- Souza V/ s . Executive Engineer (Construction)-AIR 1982 SC 854/1982 SCC (L&S ) 124 and hencehe is also eligible to get temporary status .
6.onthe other hand, the Railway management would submit in its written statement dt . 2-2-1998 and reply statement dt 26-9-1998 that the casual labour refers to Labour put on employment which is essentially intermittent, sporadic and extend over short period. Labour of those kind isnormally recruited from the nearest available source . According to management, the casual labourers in TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour as per Order No. L-41012/ 15/96- IR (B - I) dated 10-7-1997, referred for adjudication the issues as to whether the action of the management of Southern Railway in not granting temporary status to Sri . P. Ramankutty soon after completion of six months service is justified and the relief to which he is entitled. This dispute was earlier adjudicated as I.D. No. 39/97 (C) and passed an award dated 12-1-2000holding that the reference order is bad in law for the reasons that:-(1 ) The dispute was not espoused by appreciable number of workmen ofRailway management, (2) Sri . Ramankutty being a retired employee is not a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) ofthe I.D. Act and that (3) in view of the decision [PART II-SBC. 3(ii)] 10952
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
continuous employment. For the purpose of determining the eligibility of labour to be treated as temporary, the criterion should be the period of continuous work put in by each individual labour on the same type of work and not the period put in collectively by any particular gang or group of labourers ,
*
Notes-
(2) Once any individual acquires temporary status , after fulfilling the conditions indicated in( i) or( iii) above , he retains that status so long as he is in continuous employment on the railways , In other words, even if he is transferred by the administration to work of a different nature he does not lose his temporary status .
*
*
*
(4) Casual labour should not be deliberately discharged with a view to causing an artificial break in their service and this prevent their attaining the temporary status .
8. InRobert D'Souza case (supra) the Supreme Court examined the above Rule 2501 and held as follows :-
Railways are of two categories namely, open line casual labourers ( those who are engaged and utilized for maintenance & operation of Railway line) and project casual labourers (those who are engaged in projects of Railways ) . Project casual labourers are defined as seasonal labour who are deputed for specific work of less than 6 months duration or on projects . Projects include construction of new lines , major bridges , restoration on dismantling lines and other major improvement line works like doubling , widening of tunnels, bridges etc. It is further submitted by the management that the project casual labour engaged in Railway projects as defined above are eligible for 1/30 of appropriate scale rate of wages with Dearness Allowance on completion of 6 months of continuous service in the same type of work with effect trom 1-6-74 (or ) on the date from which 6 months continuous services is completed whichever is later by the authority of Railway Board letter No. P.G. 72 /RLT/69 - III dt . 12-6-74. It is further submittedby the management that the scheme for granting temporary status to casual labourers in Railways was introduced with retrospective effect from 1-1-81 based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav & Others V/s Union of India 1985 Sec . (L& S ) 526. According to management, the decision of the Supreme Court in Robert D ' Souza case ( supra ) will apply to the Robert D ' Souza alone and not to others like the workman herein and that his claim is not sustainable as per rules and regulations of Railways .
20. To start with, let us recall Rule 2501 ( b) (i ) and (iii)andnote below Rule 2505. The underlying intendment of the provision is that a casual labourer who has rendered six months ' continuous service would be placed in the category oftemporary railway servant unless he is employed onwork-charged project .
7. The issue to be considered in this case is based on Rule 2501 in Chapter XXV of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual which defines the category of casual labour . Rule 2501 reads as under :-
2501. Definition - ( a) ' Casual labour' refers to labour whose employment is seasonal, intermittent , sporadic or extends over short periods . Labour of this kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source , It is not liable 10 transfer, and the conditions applicable to permanent and temporary staff do not apply to such labour .
(b) The casual labour on railways should be employed only in the following types of cases , namely:
(i) Staff paid from contingencies except those retained for more than six months continuously. Such of those persons who continue to do the same work for which they were engaged or other work of the same type for more than six months without a break will be treated as temporary after the expiry of the six months of continuous cmployment .
(ii) Labour on projects , irrespective of duration, cxccpt those transferred from other temporary or permanent employment.
21. Rule 2501 ( b )( i) clearly provides that even where staff is paid from contingencies , they would acquire the status of temporary railway servants after expiry of six months of continuous employment . But reliance was placed on Rule 2501 ( b)( ii) which provides that labour on projects , irrespective of duration , except those transferred from other temporary or permanent employment would be treated as casual labour . In order to bring the case within the ambit of this provision it must be shown that for 20 years appellant was employed on projects . Every construction work does not imply project. Project is correlated to planned projects in which the workman is treated as work-charged. The letter dated September 5, 1966, is by the Executive Engineer , Ernakulam, and he refers to the staff as belonging to construction unit . It will be doing violence to language to treat the construction unit as project . Expression ' project ' is very well known in a planned development . Therefore , the assertion that the appellant was working on the project is belied by two facts; (i) that contrary to the provision in Rule 2501 that persons belonging to casual labour category cannot be transferred, the appellant was transferred on innumerable occasions as evidenced by orders Ex .. P- 1 dated January 24, 1962, andEx. P-2 dated August 25, 1964, and the transfer was inthe Office of the Executive Engineer (Construction); (ii) there is absolutely no reference to project in the letter (iii) Seasonal labour who are sanctioned for specific works of less than six months ' duration . If such labour is shifted from one work to another of the same type, e, g . , relaying and the total continuous period of such work at any one time is more than six months ' duration, they should be treated as temporary after the expiry of six months of
+ 10953 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
Supreme Court in Robert D' Souza's case , the Construction unitwhere Sri Ramankutty was employed along with Sri Robert D'Souza is regular unit all over the Indian Railways and the same cannot be equivated with projects . Ext..W1 series and Ext. W4 would show that he was transferred.on innumerable occasions during the period from 14-5-1956 to 2-1-1970 . Therefore , in any view of the matter, the workman herein cannot be considered as a Casual Labour onprojects.
11. The foregoing discussion of evidence would clearly show that the facts and circumstances of the case onhand and that of Robert D'Souza's case dealt with by the Supreme Court are exactly identical . Therefore , I am of the considered opinion that the decision in Robert D Souza's case would squarely apply in the present case and it has tobe held that the workman herein is eligible to claim the temporary status after the expiry of six months periodfrom 14-5-1956i.c.w.e.f. 14-11-1956.
but the department is described as construction unit. If he became surplus on completion of project there was no necessity to absorb him . But the letter dated September 5, 1966, enquires from other Executive Engineers , not attached to projects, whether the surplus staff including appellant could be absorbed by them. This shows that the staff concerned has acquired a status higher than casual labour, say temporary railway servant . And again construction unit is a regular unit all over the Indian Railways . It is a permanent unit and cannot be equated to project . Therefore, the averment of the Railway Administration that the appellant was working on project cannot be accepted. He belonged to the construction unit. He was transferred fairly often and he worked continuously for 20 years and when he questioned the bonafides ofhis transfer hehad tobe re -transferred and paid wages for the period he did not report for duty at the place where he was transferred . Cumulative effect of these facts completely belief the suggestion that the appellant worked onproject. Having rendered continuous uninterrupted service for over six months , he acquired the status of a temporary railway servant long before the termination of his service and, therefore , his service could not have been terminated under Rule 2505."
12.Placing reliance on the subsequent decisions of theSupremeCourt in Inder Pal Yadav and Others V/ s Union of India 1985 SCC ( L& S ) 526 land Union of India V/s K.G. Radhakrishna Panicker- 1996 AIR SCW 1940, the leamed counsel for the management submitted that the temporary status can be claimed ,by project casual labourers only in terms of the Scheme approved by the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav case and that too only w.e.f. 1-1-1984. A careful reading of these decisions of the Supreme Court in Inder Pal Yadav case and K.G. RadhakrishnaPanicker case would make it clear that these decisions are applicable only to the project casual labourers . In view of the above finding that the workman herein was not a project casual labourer defined in Rule 2501 these decisions have no application in his case .
9. It is notdisputed by the Railway management that the workman herein Sri Ramankutty was a colleague of Robert D'Souza who is concerned in the above Supreme Court case . Ext . W1 series office orders shows that both these persons belonged to the same construction unit and they were together transferred from one place to another . Ext. W4 Casual labour Service Card would show that Sri Ramankutty had worked continuously as Casual Labour Lascar during the period from 14-5-1956 to 2-1-1970 at various places under the Executive Engineer, Construction, Southern Railway. His Initial employment as per Ext . W4 is continuouslyfrom 14-5-1956 to 31-10-1957. In view of Rule2501 (b) (i) Sri Ramankutty who thus retained for more than six months continuously cannot be treated as a casual labourer .He would acquire the status of temporary railway servant after the expiry of six months of continuous employment.
13. The learned counsel for the management, further placed reliance on another decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi AIR 2006 SC 2806. This is a case wherein their Lordships considered the claim for regularization of dailyages temporary/ contractual employees appointed in violation of constitutional scheme. It is not the case of the Railway mariagement that the workman, Ramankutty was appointed of engaged in violation of the constitutional scheme . In the present case, the claim of the workman/union is based on the Rules contined in RailwayEstablishment manual . I, therefore, feci that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case (supra) has also no relevance or application in the present case.
In the result an award is passed holding that the action of the management of Southern railway in not granting temporary status to Sri P. Ramankutty w.c.f. 14-11-1956 soon after completion of six months service is unjustified and he is entitled to all the consequential benefits as admissible to a temporary railway senyant with effectfrom that date .
B. RANJIT KUMAR, Industrial Tribunal , 10. It is pertinent to note that in one of the office orders in Ext. W1 series , Sri Ramankutty has been designated as Temporary Lascar and in some as Lascar without any qualification as casual (In Office Order No. 375 dt. 5-3-58, he has been designated as Temporary lascar and inOffice Order No. dtd . 30-12-59 Office Order No. RJY /E/3Ldtd. 23-27-12-1960 and in OfficeOrder No. RJY /E/3L dtd. 23-27-12-1969, he has been designated as Lascar) . It would appear from these documents that the railway management itself had accepted his status other than a casual labourer at least on certain occasions . Even assuming that he was a casual labour on projects , since he was transferred from one place to another he is excluded from the purview ofRule 2501 (b ) (i) . If he was purely a casual labour on projects, it was not necessary to transfer him from one place to another . As held by the [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9, 1928
10954
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on the side of Management.
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of Workman.
WWI - Sri Ramankutty .
Documents marked on the side of management.
Ext . M1-Copy ofOrder dt. 17-1-95 in C.P. No. 36/91 (C) of the Labour Court, Ernakulam .
Documents marked on the side of Workman .
Ext. W1-Copies fo Office Orders (19 Nos .) .
Ext. W2- Copy of order dt. 6-4-94 in C.P. No. 123/83 (C). Ext.W3 Copy of Judgementdt. 3-6-93 in W.A. No. 622/ 92.
Ext . W4--Copy of Casual Labour Service Card.
Ext. W5--Another copy ofExt . W4 .
Ext. W6 Copy of Office order No. 21 dt. 23-10-1957 issued by the management.
Ext.W7--Copy ofOffice orde No. 875dt . 5-3-1958 issued by the management.
Ext. W8--Order dt. 1-7-72 issued to the workman and others .
Ext. W9--Copy of memorandum dt . 24-1-1962 issuedby the workman and others .
Ext. W10--Another copy of Ext. W3 .
Ext. W11 ---Another copy of Ext. W2 . नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2006
का.आ. 5078.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- । नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-17011 /4/2006- आई. आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006 S.O. 5078 .-- In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. 19/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court- 1, NewDelhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance corporation of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006.
[No.L- 17011 /4/2006- IR (B -I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRIBUNAL , NO . 1 NEWDELHI
I.D. No. 19/2005
IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN :
Shri Munish Kumar and Ors .
Through The General Secretary,
Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Employees ,
Congress, Vandana Building, 11 , Tolstoy Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .
...Workman
Versus
The Zonal Manager
Life InsuranceCorporation of India,
Tower- II , Jeevan Bharti Building ,
124, Connaught Circus ,
New Delhi - 110001.
...Management
APPEARANCE
None for the workmen .
Shri Nitin Nayyar A/R for the Management . AWARD
The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 17011/4/2004- IR(B - I) dated 4-7-2005 hasreferred the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.
"Whether the demand of Delhi Multi Storeyed Building Employees Congress in the matter of re- instatement and regularisation of S/Sh . Munesh Kumar, Kunwar Pal Singh , Kailash Chandra , Mahendra Kumar , Adesh Kumar , Sunil Kumar Singh, Ishwar Singh, Anil Kumar , Mahak Singh and Sudarshan Burman in the establishment of Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, New Delhi is just, Fair and legal ? If so what relief the workmen are entitled to end from which date?"
2.After receipt of reference notices were issued to theparties for filing claim and Shri Jagdish Pd. President of the Union for the workman appeared on 22-9-05 and requested for adjournment for filing claim and Shri J.M.Dutta Asstt . Administrative Officer for the management appeared . And case was adjourned to 30-11-05 for filing claim . The case was then adjourned for filing claimby the workman on 31-1-06, 5-4-06, 23-5-06, 27-7-06, 26-9-06 , 20-11-06 when Mr. Jagdish Pd. General Secretary for the claimants requested for adjournment on the ground that workmen wanted to withdraw the claim and case was adjourned to 30-11-06 but none appeared till 3 PM on behalf of the workmen though A/R for the management appeared. It appears that the workmen are not interested in the prosecution of the case giving rise to भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौत्र 9 , 1928
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
the presumption that they do not dispute the action of the management, and action of the management appears to be justified and as such no dispute award is accordingly passed. File be consigned to record room.
Dated: 30-11-06
S.S. BAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006
10955 Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 12012/119/95- IR(B- I) dated 22-11-95 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of Jammu &Kashmir Bank Ltd. in terminating the services ofSh . Pushpinder Singh Clerk- cum- Cashier in B.O.Town Hall Branch under proviions of Sec . 522(1) Sastri Award is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workman is entitled to ? " 2. Central Govt. alongwith the above industrial dispute No. 91/95 Pushpinder Singh Vs. J& K Bank Ltd. also sent four other industrialdisputes between the workmen and against the management of J &K Bank Ltd. details of all are given below :
Notification No. & Date
Sr. ID. Name of
No. No. workman
का.आ. 5079.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जे.एण्ड के. बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12012/119/95- आईआर ( बी -1 ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006 S.O. 5079. In Pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref: 91/95 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of J & K Bank Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006.
[No. L- 12012/119/95- IR (B- 1 )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,-1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I.D 91/95 .
Sh . Pushpinder Singh S/ o Sh . Karam Singh R/ o Vill , Bari Brahmana, Teh & Distt . Jammu
Applicant
Versus
1. The Chairman , J&K Bank Ltd. , Regd. Office , Residency Road, Srinagar .
2. Dy. General Manager (T) , J &K Bank Ltd. , IInd Floor , TownHall Building, Jammu .
Respondent APPEARANCES :
For the workman
: Sh . K. S. Bawa
For the management Sh . Ashok Jagga.
AWARD
Passed on 29th Nov. 2006
3916 GI/ 07-33
1. 91/95 Pushpinder Singh L- 12012/ 119/95 - IR(B - I) 22/11/95
2. 92/95 Krishan Dev Singh L- 12012/ 123/95 - IR(B - I) 22/11/95
3. 93/95 Ram Pal Dhotra L-12012/122/ 95 -IR(B -I ) 22/11/95
22/11/95 4. 94/95 Sham Sunder Khullar L- 12012/121/95 - IR(B - I) 5. 95/95 Sudhir Gupta
L-12012/120/95 - IR(B - I) 22/11/95
3. Brief facts of the case are that beside this case Pushpinder Singh Vs. J &K Bank 1D No. 91/95 there are four cases mentioned above from serial No. 2 to 5 against the same management of J &K Bank. Sh . Ashok Jagga advocate is appearing from the beginning for the respondent ofJ&K Bank (hereinafter referred to as bank ) and many advocates appeared for the workman and lastly Sh.K.S.Bawa advocate appeared and conducted the case, and finally argued on behalf of all the above workmen.
4. Sh . Ashok Jagga advocate and Sh.K.S.Bawa advocate both are in agreement that these five cases-can be disposed off by a single award passed in Pushpinder Singh Vs. J& K Bank as the facts and law and evidence in all these five cases are the same . Both the parties are also in agreement that workmen in all the cases examined themselves as the only witness in his case in all the five cases.Management examined four witnesses in each case but they are the same witnesses examined in each of the five cases . They are MW1 Mr. Samas Farooq , Manager , MW2O.N. Khajuria, retired General Manager of the Bank, MW3 Sakir Ali Khan , D.G.M. J & K Bank and MW4 Mr. Jagdish Mitter Sharma, Ex -D.Q.M . of the bank , These fourwitnesses of the management were cross - examined in detail by the workmen advocate and similarly every workman was cross - examined in detail by the bank advocate. 5. Workmen in their claim statement have averred that they were in the bank till 19-3-94 when their services wereterminated illegally in disguise of Section IV para 522 of the Sastri Award . That the said termination was void 10956
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006 /PAUSA 9, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
this Hon'ble Court by any stretch of imagination so desire or alternatively hold the opinion that further enquiry and leading of evidence was necessary, the management reserves the right to lead evidence and for that contingency prays for affording an opportunity to lead evidence and prove these facts before the Hon'ble Court in an appropriate manner. On merits also the management denied the claim ofthe workman .
abinitio, illegal and contrary to law and rules and against the provisions of ID .Act, 1947 and action under para 522 of Section IV of Sastri Award was in contravention to sub para 6 of para 521. The termination tentamount to retrenchment. That junior were retained that workers were member of the Executive of the J&KBank Employees Association (Regd . ) and recognized by the bank and this action was taken on account of their trade union activities todiscourage them from taking part in the union activities .
9.Workmenfiled replication to the written statement and in replication the workmen reiterated the stand taken in the claim statement and stated also that FIR was false and no such incident had occurred .
6. Inwritten statement preliminary objection has been takenby the bank that reference is not maintainable . Facts of the cases are that it is a most glaring and shocking incident in the history of the bank when the workman led by certain so called and self styled leaders including the present workmen who are supposed to be the protector of the institution turned to be invader , damaging and . destroying the property of the Bank and humiliating and confining the senior functionaries and officials of the Bank in utter disregard of all canons of discipline , courtesy and the office functioning .
7. The matter got wide publicity in the local circle andthe press and the entire Banking industry came under a shock . The atmosphere and discipline amongst the fellow workers came to rock bottom . The working of the Bank especially in Jammu was effected beyond imagination. The said development seriously prejudiced the large public interest in general and that of the customers in particular.
10. Workmen in evidence to prove their claim statement appeared as WW1 besides also filed their affidavit in evidence as ExW1 . All workmen submitted that when they were posted in the branch office of Town Hall the management terminated their services on 19-3-1994 without holding any enquiry , without serving charge sheet and without giving any show cause notice and as such the termination order is violative of principle ofnatural justice . It is also submitted in the affidavit that workmanPushpinder was the Vice President of the J& K Bank Employees Association (Regd .) and K.D.Singh was also Vice-President , Ram Pal Dhotra was the Central Committee Member of the Union , Sham Sunder Khullar was the General Secretary of the Union and Sudhir Gupta was the Treasurer of the Union .
11. Management in evidence produced four witnesses . They are MWI Mr. Samas Farooq , Manager, MW2O.N.Khajuria, retired General Manager of the Bank, MW3 Sakir Ali Khan , D.G.M. J & K Bank and MW4 Mr. Jagdish Mitter Sharma, Ex - D.G.M. of the bank .
8. In the light of the said incidence having occurred on 17-3-94 , the public suffered unmeasurable inconvenience as the telecom system was also broken as other workmen whose similar petitions are also pending in this Hon'ble Court entered the Division office Jammu of the Bank at about 4.00 PM and assaulted the senior Executives of the Bank including Servshri Sakir Ali Khan Secretary to Chairman , Sh . O.N.Khajuria, General Manager (Operation) as well as his personal security officer. They broke the furniture in the office and tore the valuation records of the Bank and totally finished the working . The executive were in fact shocked to see that the P.S.O. of the GeneralManager (Operation) was beaten and the General Manager (Operation) himself was abused and necdless to say used most unparliamentary language . In the aforesaid circumstances the management seriously considered the entire issue and settled state of the functioning of the bank cven the D.G.M. made the reporting which is AnnexureM- IV and finding no alternative management took the decision to move against the workman under para 522 ( 1 ) of Sastri Award and their services were accordingly terminated in the best interest of the bank in the circumstances mentioned above . In the above circumstances the bank has a right to putanendtothe services of the workmen in the said manner is a recognized and established right . According to the management bank and their employees union both. This provision of para 522 ( 1 ) has a force and these provisions are also applicable on both the parties and also recognized by the bank union. It is also requested in para 3 of the written statement by the bank that if for any reason in case
12. Detailed final arguments heard advanced by Learned counsel of both the parties . It is submitted by both the counsel that both parties tendered evidence to prove the reference on merits also . Both the parties also filed written argument whereas workmen beside written argument were also filed additional arguments and also referred the law . Learned counsel for the workmen submitted thatworkmen were member of the J&K Bank Employees Association recognized by the bank and they were the office bearer of the union as mentioned in their affidavits . The association submitted a charter of demand and had beenholding peaceful demonstration for redressal of their grievances . The respondent bank insisted upon the petitioner to abandon the trade union activities and not to press their union activities. The bank falsly allegedthat on 17-3-94 a number of workmen entered the divisional office ofthe bank at Jammu after working hours and assaulted the senior executive officers of the bank namely S / Shri Saker Ali Khan , O.N.Khajuria and his personal security officer . It was also alleged that they broken the furniture of the office and torn the valuable record of the bank and that General Manager Sh . O.N.Khajuria was actually beaten by the workmen and workmen further used unparliamentary language and filthy abuses . The alleged occurrence was भारत का राजपत : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
reported to the police of Police Station, City Jammu and FIR was registered. It was not lodged either by Sakir Ali Khan or by Sh . O.N.Khajuria but by Sh. J.M.Sharma D.G.M. who had no personal knowledge . Therefore, FIR was false and just to punish the workmen bank resorted to the provisions of para 522 of the Sastri Award.
13. In written argument it is again submitted that the reference made is Whether the action of the management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.in terminating the services of Sh.Pushpinder Singh Clerk -cum- Cashier in B.O.Town Hall Branch under provisions of Sec . 522 ( 1 ) Shastri Award is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?.
14. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel of all workmen that provision of Sastri Award are not binding but even ifare binding, bank has miserably failed toprove that the termination of the workman is justified under provision of Para 522 ( 1 ) of Sastri Award as well as provisions of I.D. Act . Witnesses of the bank have made contradictions in their statement in evidence and also before the criminal court in trial and therefore Ld . Trial , court in criminal case against the workmen all were acquitted from the criminal charge .He also submitted that in view of the law referred by him in 1985(2 ) S.C.C. page 727, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where services are terminated on account of certain misconduct, effect is deemed stigma in the absence ofdomestic enquiry. Similarly in 1987( 1 ) SCC 146, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where services were terminated on the ground of loss of confidence , without holding of domestic enquiry , the order of termination , action of the management is illegal and without jurisdiction .
15. It is also submitted that in view of AIR 1984 ( 1 ) S.C. page 509 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that wheretermination is illegal , the workman is not only cntitled for reinstatement but all other consequential benefits . In addition to written submission, workmen also submitted that the Hon'ble Court is to decide . (i) whether order of termination was a punishment , (ii ) whether there was any necessity of holding domestic enquiry before termination in view of provisions of para 521 of Sastri Award. He also referred to 1980- ILLJ222 Managing/ Director UP Warehousing Corporation Vs. Vijay Narain Vajpayce wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared that although article 311 may not apply to persons who are holders of civil posts , once the principles of natural justice are treated as applicable , the employer will have to make an enquiry in accordance with rules . It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several cases that where termination of service is stated to be simpliciter , the court must lift the veil . As there is no charge sheet, the bank authoritics are not entitled to inflict the major punishment of termination of services by invoking the para 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award. Bank should have issued chargesheet & should have enquired the misconduct as per Sastri Award para 521. Termination in all probabilities is unjust and illegal . It is submitted by the workmen advocate that the references 3916 GI/06-34
10957 may be decided in favour of the workman and workmen may be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.
16. In reply to the above learned counsel for the management submitted in reply that Zonal Officer ofthe Bank is at Jammu where a group of persons including the five workmen entered the office of General Manager and humiliated and misbehaved..An FIR was lodged in Police Station Jammu. It is also submitted that the date of incident is 17-3-1994, the date of termination is 19-3-1994 and the dateofFIR is 22-3-1994. He submitted that managementto provethe incidence, examined four witness, whereas the workman examined only one witness that too himself. In written arguments management submitted that workman named above with their supporters committed acts which wereprejudicial to the interests of the Bank in as much as they humiliated and confined the senior functionaries and officials of the Bank by defying all norms of discipline, courtesyand office functioning. The petitioners damaged anddestroyed the property of the Bank as well . This they did by exceeding all norms . The atmosphere and the discipline amongst other workmen of the Bank was nose- dived. This indiscipline on the part of the petitioner/ workmen had far reaching consequences . It proved detrimental tothe interest of the Bank in particular and to the customers of the Bank in general . The conduct of the petitioners and their so called leaders posed a grave threat tothe functioning of the Bank. The terror of the petitioners was so tremendous and prevailed everywhere that unless and until the services of these employees were terminated theBank could not have been able to effectively resumes its functions . In this scenario the management of the Bank considered the entire issue and found itself with no alternative but to dispense with the services of the petitioners. The Bank had lost confidence in the petitioners and in the larger interests of the institution decided to removethem.
7 17. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioners in question were dispensed with under clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award, which governed their service conditions. It is important to submit that the trade union activities by no stretch of imagination call for resorting to indiscipline humiliating and confining officers and damaging the property of the employer . Further after the termination of the petitioners the industrial atmosphere in the respondent Bank has improved by leaps and bounds and the industrial relationship between the workmen , their union and the management has reached a new high which proves that the termination of petitioners was timely and justified. The petitioners have vainly tried to improve their case by projecting a story in their written submissions , which is far from truth. It is concoction that the management of the Bank insisted upon the petitioners to abandon their trade union activities and compelled them not to press for the demand of the Bank employees . It is all afterthought .
18. In addition to resorting to clause 522( 1 ) of Sastry Award, an FIR was lodged against the petitioners of the 10958
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30 , 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
SastryAward. Further, it is submitted that the provision of SastryAward ingeneral and clause Chapter IV clause 522 ( 1 ) having stood the judicial scrutiny over a period of about 50years and cannot be found fault with by the petitioners . The petitioners are bound by the said Award and by the orders oftermination under clause 522( 1 ) .
incident of 17-3-1994 on 22-3-1994. Orally the learned counsel for the bank submitted that the terror andhorror was such that even the sufferers were not ready to say anything . It is also submitted that para 522 ( 1 ) does not attract the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. He submitted that in written submission the bank management has reproduced the provisions and that its application of Sastri Award as under . It is humbly submitted that Bipartite Settlements , which govern the service conditions of employees of various Banks , originate from Sastry Award, Chapter 1 of Memorandum of Industrial Disputes between Certain Banking Companies and their Workmen dated 19-10-1996 is reproduced hereunder:-
20. It is important to submit here that the services of thepetitionerswere terminated under clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award by giving three months pay in lieu of notice . The said pay of three months has been paid tothem and utilized by them without any reservation of whatsoever kind till date. This aspect has no important bearing on the case inasmuch as the orders of termination of petitioners have been acted upon and assumed finality with afflux of time. Thepetitioners having utilized three months pay in lieu of notice have also interalia put the seal of finality thereon. Inthis view of the matter the petitioners are legally estopped from challenging the legality of the impugned orders of termination. In view of the above provisions of para 522, termination was simpliciter, without any stigma and either three months notice or three months pay is to be given to the concerned workmen and the management fully compliedwiththis provision of this SastryAward.
" 1.1 The Parties are agreed that the provisions of the Award of the all India Industrial Tribunal presided over by Shri P. Sastry as finally modified and enacted by the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies ) Decision Act 1955, the Industrial Disputes (Banking Companies) Decision amendment Act, 1957 and the provisions of the Award of the National Industrial Tribunal/presided overby Mr. Justice K.T. Desai in Reference No. 1 of 1960 which Award interalia modifies certain provisions of the Sastry Award, shall govern the service conditions therein covered except to the extent that the same have been modified. inthis Settlement.
Subsequently on 20-3-1974 on agreement was arrived at between the Management of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and the All India Bank Employees Association and the Workmen employees ofthe Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. , represented by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Employees Union Srinagar and Jammu & Kashmir Bank Employees Union Delhi in respect ofdemands of Jammu & Kashmir Bank EmployeesUnion Delhi . In the said agreement it was agreed to extend the provisions of Bipartite Settlements dated 19-10-1966 , 12-10-1970 and 8-11-1973 between the Indian Banks Association and All India Bank Employees Association with effect from 1-4-1974 . A copy of the agreement is enclosed for ready reference ."
19. Therefore , it is crystal clear that the Sastry Award together with Desai Award and Bipartite Settlements do extend to the Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. , The respondent bank has acted upon the said Awards and Settlements since 1974. The employees union of which the petitioners were members of, has been a party to the agreement ( supra) as such the said award and the agreements govemed the service conditions of the petitioners and the respondents were justified in invoking the relevant provision of Sastry Award for dispensing with their services . The petitioners , it is submitted, are estoped under law to challenge the jurisdiction of the respondents in resorting to provision of
21.He also submitted that provisions of para 521 of Sastry Awarddoes not apply in the cases in hand. The management has taken action of dispensing with the services of the petitioners after taking into consideration facts and circumstances of their cases into account and with proper application of mind . The terror of these five persons was so tremendous and prevailed every where that unless and until the services of these persons were not done away with the Bank could not have been able to effectively resumes the functions . The matter was widely publicized in news papers too. Other witnesses produced beforethe Tribunal have also proved the incident in totality which necessitated issuance of impugned termination orders . The workmen have vainly tried to interpret the evidence in the manner it suits them . taking out some sentences out of context and want this Tribunal to appreciate them in isolation . It is further submitted that provisions ofpara 522 ( 1 ) were invoked and not para 521. If the management wanted to take the disciplinary action lor misconduct against the petitioners then it could have initiate departmental proceedings againt them which if proved could result intheir dismissal with stigma and without any benefits . It is rurther submitted that the employees terminated under clause 522( 1 ) or Sastry Award are entitled toterminal benefits i.e. Gratuity and Provident Fund under rules with pension benefit. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the Para under reply is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the cases in hand and the law referred by the workmen is not applicable. It is also suhmitted that applicability orprovisions made in Clause 522( 1 ) or Sastry Award are not denied by the workman . This provision itself empower the bank in such like situation to take action under clause 522( 1 ) without holding any enquiry dispensing with the services ofthe workmen . The powers in 522 ( 1 ) of
144 10959 भारत कम राजयन: दिसम्बर 30, 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Sastri Award are independent and exclusive. whichrequires nohelp from para 521 of SastryAward.
22. Bank counsel also submitted that further bank has to led evidence to prove the misconduct/charge sucessfully by the oral evidence of four MWs besides documents that acts of all workmen as narrated by MWs arc grave misconduct fully proved and on this count also the action is justified.
23. Learned counsel for bank submitted that in view of the above submissions of the bank the action of the bank in terminating the services of the workman under para 522( 1 ) or under para 521 are justand legal.
24. He further submitted that the workman contention that bank cannot terminate their services even under clause 522 or Sastry Award without resorting to clause 521 or Sastry Award i.e. without holding departmental enquiry. He submitted that under para 522 if workman is discharged or disengaged, it is not stigma and: he is entitled to benefits ofretirement and in the situation: departmental enquiry was held and he is held guilty, it amountsto stigma and not entitled for any relief. He submitted that there was a scare in the bank and other people cannot come to the rescue of General Manager and aterror spread in the bank, therefore, invoking provisions ofpara 522 is less harmful to the workmen and in favour of the workmen and also in favour of the bank and by disengaging the workmen terror situation which were out of control and work in the circumstances could notbe restored was restored when all the above workmen were disengaged from work. The claim of the workmen that they were acquittedfrom a criminal charge and therefore , also entitled for reinstatement is also incorrect . It is also submitted that the managemerit has led evidence to prove the termination by four witnesses of msconduct. It was proved by the management that the incident is not concocted but it is true one and to take any action, the Senior Officer has to decide totake any action , management is tobe consulted and that is why petty delay of few days occurred. On the other hand workmen in their affidavit have saidnothing that the incident is not true . They have not denied the incident and management proved the occurrence by producing four witnesses whereas the workman only produced themselves as witness . Further Ld. Advocate of Bank also submitted that bank and petitioner workmen had led complete evidence on merits and had lifted the viel where entire evidence on merits of the case ofboth parties was recorded. In case if it is held that enquiry was necessary before invoking paras under para 522 (1 ) Sastry Award then bank and workmen both have led their complete evidence on merits of the case and toprove the charge. Bank has prové its case also onmerits by leading evidence of four witnesses of the occurrence andproved the reference in Bank's favour, therefore, the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmen under para 522 ( 1 ) is just and legal.
the workmen and the management and my perusal of oral evidence of both parties and documents it is not disputed that workmen were terminated on 19-3-1994, whether ista punishment termination simplicitor or that no action can be taken under clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award without holding enquiry as per clause 521 of the Sastry Award. In this regard both the parties led oral evidence . Workmen examinedthemselves as his only witness whereas the bank examined four witnesses both parties cross -examined on oath witness of each other. In this regazd, here I refer to 1960, II.LL.J. page222 a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofthree Judges Bench in Chartered Bank Bombay Vs. CharteredBank Employees ' Union and another . It -18 based on the facts and law similar to the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ift the above referred judgment, by me, have held that services of a permanent workman terminated simpliciter in pursuance to the provisions of the relevant Standing. Orders or the terms of is contract ofemployment on giving a notice or or payment of wages in lien of sucht nottee, industrial dispute relating to justification of self action of the employer referred is adjudication Industrist Tatyanador Labour Count adjudicating suchsuchi dispute if and Whercould interfere wittt theordertof termination , employer if could refine lir suchi case to disclose the circumstances înder which the concernedworkman was discharged or his services were teminated. In this case clauses 521 and 522 ( 1 ) were referred. It is further held that there is no doube that an employer cannotdispensewiththe services orsa permanent emplofte bymero notice and claim that the industrial tribunakhas no jurisdiction to inquim into the circumstances in which such termination orserviers simpliciter took place, It was ofthe opinion that even in a case of this kind the requirement.of bona fides isessential and if the termination of services is a colourable exereise or the power or as a result of victimization or unfair Jabour practice, the industrial tribunal would have the jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such termination. The contention of the bankare, that the incident which was widely published in the news papers and was talk of the Jamsou city dated- 17-3-1994, there was atezror in the respondent , Bank and among its executive officers , staff and the public customer. Even for this incidentFIR could not be lodged up to 22-3-1994 and was lodgedafter consultation among officers after, five days and that too after the respondent bank after considering all aspects the intornst of the workmen that their career,may notbe blotted and there may be no stigma in their character invoked powers u/s 522( 1 ) of Sastry Award and their services were terminated dispensing with the enquiry in their conduct. Itwas also submitted that quality ofproof in inquiry is differeat and in a trial before a criminal edart proof required beyond shadow of reasonable doubt whereas this was not so in a domestic enquiry . But respondent bank while vehemently submitting that they rightly invoked the powers under clause 522 ( 1 ) of the SastryAward rather in the interest of the workmen and in the interest of the respondent bank and at the society at large entitling the workmen to get their retrial benefits like 25. In view of the above submissions in writing and also oral submission in the court by the advocates of 10960
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA 9 , 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] gratuity etc. It was also contended why the learned counsel for the bank that in the circumstances if the learned Tribunal holds that domestic enquiry was essential before termination or that powers under clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award was used in a malafide intention of the bank , even at that stage in written statement itself, of the bank has requested to decide the conduct of the workman on merits and the bank to prove the misconduct of all workmen examined four witnesses and who also filed their affidavit and also proved document .
!
part of the bank to hold enquiry . It is not challenged by the workman nor the competence to decide the matter under para 522 of Sastry Award is ultra vires . I have also found that while learned counsel for the workman was making submissions that how so grave may be the misconduct in all probability in all situation for even misconduct of a workman, bank is bound to take departmental action under 521 of the Sastry Award, but without denying the existence and applicability of 522 of the Sastry Award , this provision is not challenged by workmen and as per the bank the incident was so serious , most glaring and shocking in the history of the bank when the workmen led by so called and self styled leaders including the present workmen are supposed to be protector of the institution turned to be invader, damaging and destroying the property of the bank and humiliating and confining the senior functionaries and officials of the bank in utter disregard of all canons of discipline, courtesy and the office functioning . To meet such like situation, the provision under para 522 ( 1 ) was made and therefore , the only option left with the bank even in the interest of workmen also to invoke the provisions of clause 522 and therefore , their services were terminated 'without casting any stigma and it is very much clear from the termination letter itself.
26. MWs except minor contradictions made in their deposition which they made after a long time, these witnesses proved the incident. On the other hand workmen all the five examined only one witness i.e. the workman himself and there is no corrobortion of their version . At the same time these five workmen in their individual affidavits are totally silent regarding the incident . There is total silence whether such incident occurred of not . The affidavit filed by the workman in each case. And as per affidavit contention is that termination tantamount to retrenchment and that bank terminated their services on account of their trade union activities . All the five workmen filed their affidavit in their cases and all the affidavits are verbatim the same . 1 have found that as per oral evidence of the workman, and their affidavits they contended that the termination of their services is in violation of provisions ofI.D.Act as well as against the spirit of clause 521 ( 1 ) of SastryAward.
29. But the contentions of the workmen are simply that in all misconduct, may be under para 522 ( 1 ) departmental enquiry as laid down under clause 521 is to be conducted by the bank and provisions of clause 522( 1 ) are not attracted and wrongly invoked the provisions against the workman just to get rid of them duc to their trade union activities . But if the contention of the workmen advocate are accepted, then there is no situation which attract the provisions of clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award and this provision is a waste provision existing in the Sastry Award. Learned counsel for the workman also contended that the order of termination of workmen is a matter of punishment and there was necessity of enquiry before terminating in view of the provisions of para 522 of the SastryAward. There may be restrictions on the use of para 522 but it is a valid provision to meet such eventuality.
27. After considering their detailed arguments oral , written and law referred by them, I have found that both the parties are in agreement that as bank to prove their case as just and legal and bank has tried to prove the incident of 17-3-1994 was most glaring and shocking incident was so serious , in the history of the bank when the workmen led by so called and self styled leaders including the present workmen are supposed to be protector of the institution turned to be invader , damaging and destroying the property of the bank and humiliating and confining the senior functionaries and officials of the bank in utter disregard of all cannons of discipline , courtesy and the office functioning. The matter got wide publicity in the local cirde and the press and the entire banking industry came under a shock . The atmosphere and discipline amongst the fellow workers came to rock bottom. The working of the bank especially in Jammu was effected miserably . There was a big commotion in the office ofO.N. Khajuria, General manager .
30. I have already discussed above that contentions of the learned counsel for the hank are that respondent bankhas rightly invoked the provisions of para 522 ( 1 ) and termination of the services of the workman are on two counts (a) that it was need of the hour and necessity of the situation and secondly in the interest of the workman as the termination order is worded in such a way that no situation can be read or take on as a punishment and cause no stigma on workmen.
31. Further it is not disputed that both the parties led oral evidence and proved documents to prove their case also on merits that is to prove/disprove the charges .
32. In view of the arguments and evidence brought on record and submissions of the learned counsels for boththe parties, I am of the considered view that workman ledno corroborating evidence in support of their claim and 28. The only denial has come of the workman in their evidence in their cross -examination about the incident . But in support of their contention there is no corroboration cvidence of any other witness except the workmen . I have gone through the provisions of clause 522 ( 1) of the Sastry Award as cxistence of this provision not disputed by the workman and their only objection is that although the termination letter is a termination simpliciter casting no stigma on the workman but it is based on some misconduct of the workınan and therefore , it was as mandatory on the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
that no such incident as described by the bank ever took place except the action of bank i.e. order of termination to stop them to take part in union activities . Further I am of the considered view that the provisions of para 522 ( 1 ) Sastri Award are applicable and the incidence as described by the Bank in the court took place, despite their acquittal in criminal court on benefit ofdoubts , as acquittal on benefit ofdoubt, decree or guilt of proof in enquiry is different from trial before a criminal court where in the criminal court, proof is required to hold guilty , beyond shadow of reasonable. doubts whereas this was not so in domestic enquiry. Workman has produced only one witness that is workınan himself & there is no corroboration to their evidence . Even in their affidavits in evidence they are silent onthe pointof their grave misconduct on 17-3-94 as alleged bybank. Therefore , there was no necessity or holding any domestic enquiry before termination of services of the workman under provisions of clause 522 (1 ) of the Sastry Award in not holding any enquiry, as such situation warrants . As regard order of termination of the workmen was as a matter of punishment. I have found that bare reading of the termination letter of all the workmen, I have found that it gives no sign to think that the order of termination is casting any stigma or that it is by way of punishment. It is also not proved that it is a colorable exercise of power nor alleged so by workmen.
33. Further as regard contention of learned counsel for the workman that before terminating the services of the workman enquiry is must, as per clause 521 of SastryAward even action is to be resorted under para 522 and as described by the bank in their written statement and in oral arguments that even in case the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that enquiry was necessary before termination of their services, in arguments learned counsel for the bank further submitted that bank had led the evidence of four witnesses MW1 Samas Farooq, MW2 O.N. Khajuria, MW3 Sakir Ali Khan and MW4 Jagdish Mittar , who fully proved the gravity of the situation and gravity of the incident that it caused terror , which necessitated & compelled the bank to invoke the powers under para 522 of Sastri Award . He also contended that ratio ofproving in a criminal case or as in a case like in this Tribunal is quite different. In a criminal case , prosecution to get a conviction / punishment rigorous has to prove its casebeyond reasonable doubts .But it is not so before this trihunal and in this court when workman has not said a word regarding the denial of the incident and that bank besides proved its contentions that provisions of 522( 1 ) brought evidence were rightly invoked, the bank has proved that act of termination of service was necessity and services ofthe workmen were rightly terminated.
34. In view of my above considered view taken regarding applicability of para 522 Sastri Award I am further of the view & hold that Bank has proved that workmen committed grave misconduct on 17-3-94 when they entered in the office for G.M for invoking the provisions of 522( 1 ) ofSastry Award . I have also held and decided on another contention/plea of workmen that enquiry is tobe heldwhich
10961
भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौव 9 , 1928
canbeheldby the Court also and was held and both parties led oral anddocumentary evidence.
35.Therefore, in view of the abovediscussion above I further hold that bank has successfully proved that the action of the workmen/petitioner on above incidence occurredat 4 PM on 17-3-1994 at Jamimu office of the bank was most glaring and shocking /grave and bank also by oral evidence and documents , bank proved the above charges ofgrave misconduct against all above workmen in the court . Therefore the bank succeeded to prove that even in case of enquiry held by this court, bank successfully proved the charge of above grave misconduct also.
36. In the end , bank successfully proved the reference inhis favour that action of management or J &K Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of workmen in B.O.Town Hall Branch under provisions or para 522( 1 ) SastryAward is just and legal and also workmen could not prove in their favour . Therefore , workmen also not entitled to any relief. The references are disposed of. Central Govt. be informed. Files be consigned to record. A copy of this award be also placed in each of the five cases .
Chandigarh. RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ 5080.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डेल्टा एअर लाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[ सं. एल-11012/51/2001- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th December , 2006 S.O. 5080.- In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/ 2006) of the Central Govemment 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 Delta Air Lines and their workman, which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 01-12-2006.
[No. L- 11012/51 /2001 - IR (C - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS,PresidingOfficer Reference No. CGIT-32 of2006 [PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 30, 2006/PAUSA- 9, 1928
10962
Parties Employers in relation to the management ofM/s.Delta Airlines
And
Theirworkmen.
APPEARANCES
Mr. G. S. Shetty , Adv .
For the Management :
For the Association : Mr.R.B.Chavan, Adv . Shri Leo D'Souza, President,
Maharashtra
:
State
Muinbai dated the 21st day of Novermber , 2006 .
AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (the Act for short ) vide Govemment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order -11012/51/2001 - IR( C - 1 ) dated 26/9/2006 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
(1 ) Whether the stand of the management of M/s . Delta Airlines that the 15 cabin Attendants have been transferred to Bombay Office upon closure of Delhi Office and not reemployment after retrenchment , is correct . If yes , whether this action is fair and legal ?
(2) Whether the stand of the management of M/s . Delta Airlines that there I no change of service conditions for the Cabin Attendants already employed in Bombay office upon fixing inter- se- seniority of such workman and those transferred from Delhi Office is correct . If yes , whether this action is fair and legal ?
(3) Whether the criteria adopted for fixing inter - se- seniority of the two sets of Cabin Attendants is just, fair, as per existing Rules and/or practice?
(4) Whether the demand of the Union for the deduction of 3 % from the arrears , arising out of settlement dated 12-12-86, payable to all employees towards the Union Fund is legal and justified?
2. The matter caine up for hearing today before me . The IInd Party has moved an application with a request that the Ilnd Party does not wish to prosecute the reference further in view of the fact that the parties have resolvedthe issuc and hence the reference may be disposed of.
3. This application is not opposed to by the Advocate for the 1st Party .
4. In this circuinstance , the refcrence is dismissed.
5. An Award is made accordingly.
JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर , 2006
का.आ 5081.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डेल्टा एअर लाइंस 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 64/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल -11012/51/2001 - आई आर( सी- I ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 12th December , 2006
S.O. 5081. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/2003) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Mumbai - I now as shown in the annexure in industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Delta Air Lines and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 01-12-2006 .
[No. L- 11012/51 /2001 - IR (C -I)]
AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI
PRESENT
JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-64-of 2003
Parties Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . Delta Airlines
And Theirworkmen.
APPEARANCES
: Mr. G. S. Shetty,Adv.
For theManagement
For the Association
State : Mr.R.B. Chavan , Adv . Shri Leo D'Souza, President, Maharashtra :
Mumbai , dated the 20th day of Novermber , 2006
AWARD
1.This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short ) vide Govemment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No.L- 11012 /51 /2001 - IR ( C - 1 ) dated 10/11/2003. Theterms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:
1. क्या मैसर्स डेल्टा एअर लाइंस का तर्क कि उनके दिल्ली कार्यालय के बंद होने पर उसमें कार्यरत 15 केबिन अटेंडेंटस को मुम्बई स्थानांतरित किया गया है न कि उनकी छटनी के प्रश्चात् पुनः सेवा यापन का लाभ दिया गया है, सही है। यदि हां तो क्या यह कार्यवाही उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ?
2. क्या मैसर्स डेल्टा एअर लाइंस का तर्क कि दिल्ली में कार्यरत केबिन अटेंडेंटस को मुम्बई स्थानांतरित किए जाने तथा उनकी अन्तर - वरिष्ठता स्थानांतरित किए जाने पर मुम्बई [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
10963
भारत का राजपल : दिसम्बर 30 , 2006/पौष 9 , 1928
में पहले से कार्यरत कर्मकारों की सेवा शर्तों पर कोई प्रभाव नहींपड़ता सही है ?
अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से हो है) अध्याय-5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और 78, 79और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । उपबन्ध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत होंगे, अर्थात:-
3. क्या मुम्बई में पहले से कार्यरत एवं दिल्ली से स्थानांतरित कोबिन अटेंडेंटस के दो बगों में अंतर वरिष्ठता निर्धारित किये जाने का आधार एवं मापदण्ड न्यायपूर्ण, उचित एवं नियमोंके अनुकूल है।
"नालगोण्डा जिले के कोदाड़ मण्डल में स्थित कोमर बोण्डा, कोदाड़ , अनन्तगिरी, लक्मावरम्, गोन्ड्रियाल , टी.बी. पालेम्, खानापुरम्, गुडिबंडा, कापुगल्लु तथा दोस्कुण्टा राजस्व गांव के सीमा के अंतर्गत सभी क्षेत्र।"
2. This reference was decided ex - parte vide Award 1. 13-1-2004 which was set aside by this Tribunal vide Onderdt. 20-12-2005 in Misc .Application CGIT-4 of2004. Consequently the reference was restored to its original member.
[सं. एस-38013/67/2006- एस. एस. - 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi, the 20th December , 2006 3. The matter came up for hearing today i.e. 20-11-2006. The Ind Partyhas moved an application with a request that the IInd Party does not wish to prosecute the reference further in view of the fact that the parties have resolvedthe issue and hence the reference may bedisposed of.
4.This application isnot opposed toby the Advocate forthe 1stParty.
5. In this circumstance, the reference is dismissed.
6. An Award is made accordingly.
JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, PresidingOfficer
S.O. 5062- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees's State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2007 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and45 whichhave 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 saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:
नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर, 2006
"All the areas falling within the limits of Revenue Villages of Komarabonda , Kodad , Ananthagiri , Lakmavaram, Gondriyala, T.B. Palem , Khanapuram. Gudibanda, Kapugallu and Dorakunta in Kodad Mandal in NalgondaDistrict . "
का.आ 5082. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा 01 जनवरी , 2007 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के
[No. S-38013 /67/2006-S.S-1 ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 11006 and Published by the Controller of Publications . Delhi- 110054.