This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. LIND 04/0007/2003 भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India-

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

जनवरी 6 , 2007 , शनिवार पौष 10- पौष 16, 1928 सं. 1 ]

नई दिल्ली , दिसम्बर 31 , 2006

No. 1 ] NEW DELHI , DECEMBER 31 , 2006 JANUARY 6 , 2007 , SATURDAY/PAUSA 10 PAUSA 16, 1928 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II-सखण्ड 3- उप-खण्ड (ii )

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

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली , 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.ओ. 1. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रवन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 9( 2 ) के उप - खण्ड ( ख ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतररा) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) ( छ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से फ्यूमूर्श करने के पश्चाद, एतद्‌द्वारा , नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम 2 में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए और अथवा अगला आदेश कोने तु इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, उक्त तालिका के कॉलम ( 1 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट बैंकों के बोहों में, सनदी लेखाकार वर्ग के तहत अंशकालिक गैर सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में बासित करती है :

मालिका

श्री कवलजीत सिंह ओबराय , सनदी लेखाकार , नई दिल्ली सिंडीकेंट बैंक

'श्री बृजमोहन शर्मा , सनदी लेखाकार , दिल्ली

विजया बैंक

श्री एस. आर खुराना , सनदी लेखाकार, नई दिल्ली पंजाब नेशनल बैंक

डॉ. आर. के. अग्रवाल , सनदी लेखाकार, रायपुर (म.प्र. ) यूनाइटेड बैंक आफ इंडिया

श्री पी. एल. मित्तल, सनदी लेखाकार, चण्डीगढ़

यूको बैंक

3986 G1/2006 2

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii ) ]

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(BankingDivision)

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2007

S.O. 1.- In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- section (3 ) ( g) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 , read with Sub- clause (b) of clause 9(2) of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme , 1970/1980 the Central Government, after Consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominate the persons specified in column 2 of the table below as part time non - official Director under Chartered Accountant category , on the Boards of the Banks specified in column 1 of the said table for a period ofthree years from the date of notification and/or until further orders , whichever is earlier :-

TABLE

(1)

(2)

SyndicateBank

Shri Kawaljit Singh Oberoi , Chartered Accountant NewDelhi .

VijayaBank

Punjab National Bank

Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, Chartered Accountant Delhi . Shri S.R. Khurana,

Chartered Accountant

NewDelhi .

United Bank of India

Dr. R.K. Agarwal, Chartered Accountant Raipur(M.P. ) .

UCO Bank

Shri P.L. Mittal , Chartered Accountant Chandigarh.

[F. No. 9/30/2004-B.O- I ] G. B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.आ. 2.- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 8 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री संजय लाबरू , निवासी 6 , ग्रीन एवेन्यू लेन, आफ ग्रीन एवेन्यू, किशनगढ़ , वसन्त कुंज , नई दिल्ली-110070 को2-1-2007 से चार वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय निदेशक मंडल में निदेशक नामित करती है । 2. भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 की धारा 8 की उप - धारा 4 के उपबंधों के अनुसार श्री संजय लाबरू की निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्तिहोने के परिणामस्वरूप , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय निदेशक मंडल में नामित विद्यमान निदेशक , श्री डी. एस . बरार , 2 जनवरी , 2007 से निदेशक नहीं रहेंगे ।

[फा. सं. 7/2/2004- बीओ -1 ]

अमिताभ वर्मा , संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2007

S.O. 2. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (c) of Sub- section (1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act , 1934 (2 of 1934) , the Central Government , hereby nominates Shri Sanjay Labroo , resident of 6 , Green Avenue Lane, Off Green Avenue , Kishangarh , Vasant Kunj , New Delhi - 110070 to be Director of the Central Board ofDirectors of Reserve Bank of India for a period of four years with effect from 02-01-2007.

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2. In accordance with the provisions of Sub- section (4) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 , consequent to appointment of Shri Sanjay Labroo as director , Shri D. S. Brar, existing director nominated on the Central BoardofDirectors of the Reserve Bank of India shall cease to be director with effect from 2nd January 2007.

[F. No. 7/2/2004- B.O- I ] AMITABH VERMA, Jt. Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.आ. 3.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3) ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , सुश्री इन्दु सिंह पवार को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2006- बीओ- I ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2007

S.O. 3. 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 Ms. Indu Singh Pawar as part - time non - official Director on the Board of Central Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of notification or until her successor is nominated or until further orders , whichever is earliest .

[F. No. 9/4/2006- B.O - I ] G.B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.आ. 4.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्‌द्वारा , श्रीमती रानी सतीश को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2006- बीओ -1 ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव

New Delhi , the 2nd January , 2007

S.O. 4. 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 Smt . Rani Satish as part -time non -official Director on the Board ofUnion Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of notification or until her successor is nominated or until further orders , whichever is earliest.

[F. No. 9/4/2006-B.O - I G. B. SINGH, Dy . Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.आ. 5.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा , सुश्री शोभा ओझा को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , सिंडीकेट बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2006- बीओ- I]

जी. बी. सिंह, उप सचिव 4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) )

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2007

S.O. 5. 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 Ms. Shobha Oza as part - time non - official Director on the Board of Syndicate Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification or until her successor is nominated or until further orders , whichever is earliest.`

[F. No. 9/4/2006- B.O - I ]

G. B. SINGH , Dy. Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.आ. 6.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3- क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्री के. के. शर्मा और श्रीमती कमल मान को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, पंजाब एण्ड सिंध बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2006- बीओ- I ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2007

S.O. 6.- 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 K. K. Sharma and Mrs. Kamal Mann as part- time non - official Directors on the Board of Punjab and Sind Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification or until her successors are nominated or until further orders , whichever is carliest.

[F. No. 9/4/2006- B.O - I ]

G. B. SINGH , Dy. Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2007

का.आ. 7.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीण 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 9 की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री प्रवीण डावर , श्री मंसूर अहमद अंसारी , श्री प्रवन सिंह घटोवार एवं सुश्री अनसुया शर्मा को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , युनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर - सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/4/2006-बीओ- I ]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd January , 2007

S.O. 7. 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 Parveen Davar , Shri Manzoor Ahmed Ansari , Shri Paban Singh Ghatowar and Ms Anusuya Sharma as part - time non - official Director on the Board of Union Bank of India for a period of three years from the date ofnotification or until her successor are nominated or until further orders , whichever is earliest .

[F. No. 9/4/2006-B.O- 1 ]

G. B. SINGH, Dy. Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

रेल मंत्रालय

(रेलवे बोर्ड)

नई दिल्ली , 26 दिसम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 8.-रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम , 10 के उप- नियम ( 2 ) और (4 ) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय कंटेनर निगम लिमिटेड के नागपुर स्थित मध्य क्षेत्र कार्यालय , जहां 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

[सं. हिंदी-2006/रा.भा. 1/12/1 ] कृष्णा शर्मा , संयुक्त निदेशक ( राजभाषा )

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

(RailwayBoard)

New Delhi , the 26th December , 2006

S. O. 8. Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) , in pursuance of sub- rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules , 1976 (use for the official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the Central Zone Office of Container. Corporation of India Ltd. , situated at Nagpur, where 80 % or more Officers/Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

[No.Hindi -2006/0.L. 1/12/1 ]

KRISHNA SHARMA, Jt. Director (O. L.) उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 26 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 9.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

4 1. आई एस 8310 : 2006/ आई एस ओ 2108 : 2005

आई एस 8310 : 2003/

नवंबर 2006

आई एस ओ 2108 : 1992

सूचना और प्रलेखन- अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय मानक पुस्तक संख्या ( आई एस बी एन ) ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110 002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: एम एम डी/जी-8 अधिसूचना ]

नरेश कुमार ग्रोवर , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( प्रबन्ध एवं तंत्र ) [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 26th December, 2006

S. O. 9. 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

Sl . No.

Date of Established No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

No.& Year ofIndian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

November , 2006 1.

IS8310: 2003/ ISO 2108: 1992

IS 8310 : 2006/ISO 2108 : 2005 Information and Documentation -International Standard Book Number ( ISBN ) ( Second revision)

Copy of above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhawan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and its Regional Offices at Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai , and also Branch Offices at Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderbad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Punc and Thiruvananthapuraın.

[Ref.: MSD/G -8 Notification ]

N. K. GROVER, Scientist ' F ' & Head ( MSD)

नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 10.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए हैं वे 14 जून, 2006 से रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गये है:

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

भारत के राजपत्र भाग 2 , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का. आ. संख्या और तिथिप्रकाशित

व्यापार/ उद्योग में उपयोग का नहीं है ।

3103 दिनांक 13-09-1986

1. आई एस 10549 : 1983 औद्योगिक प्रयोग के लिए प्रसंस्कारित अवाष्पशील तेल

2687 दिनांक 10-09-1966

2. आई एस 57 : 1989 पेंट और अन्य प्रयोजनों के लिए लाल सीसा

यह कच्ची सामग्री का मानक है । प्रयोग में न होने के कारण उत्पाद का मानक पहले ही वापिस लिया जा चुका है ।

आई एस 3025 के अंतर्गत इसकी सभी

2505 दिनांक 21-07-1979

अपेक्षाओं का विभिन्न भागों में प्रकाशन 3.. आई एस 2488 ( भाग 5 ): 1976 बहिः स्त्रों के नमूने लेने की पद्धति तथा औद्योगिक परीक्षण

उत्पाद प्रयोग में नहीं है।

4. आई एस 643 : 1955 पेन्ट के लिए साइक्लोहेक्सन ( हेक्साहाइड्रोबेंजीन )

[संदर्भ : सीएचडी/आई एस 10549 ]

डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञानिक एफ, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राज जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

New Delhi , the 27th December, 2006

S.O. 10. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule (1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , it is , hereby notified that the Indian Standards, Particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn w.c.f. 14 June, 2006.

SCHEDULE Sl . No. No. and Year of the Indian Standards Cancelled

S.O. No. and Date published in the Gazette of India, Part-II , Section-3, Sub-section( ii) 1

3 1.

Remarks

3103, dated 13-09-1986

IS 10549: 1983 Processed fixed oils for industrial use

Material is not of significance in business / industry.

2687, dated 10-09-1966

2. IS 57: 1989 Red lead for paints and other purposes (second revision)

It is a raw material standard. Product standard has already been withdrawn as itis not being used .

2505, dated21-07-1979

IS 2488: (Pt . 5): 1976 Methods of sampling and test for industrial effluents , Part V

4. IS 643 : 1955Cyclohexane (hexahydrobenzene) for paints

Publication of all its requirements into different parts under IS 3025.

Products not being used.

[Ref.: CHD/IS 10549]

Dr. U.C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist 'F' , Director & Head (Chemical )

नई दिल्ली , 28 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 11.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के उपनियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूधी

लाइसेंसधारी का

लाइसेंस

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या संख्या

नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि/वर्ष/माह

1. 7668295 08-11-06 हरी बालाजी देदगांवकर

भाग अनुभाग वर्ष मा.मा. संख्या

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु

आभूषण/कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति

और चिन्हांकन

मं. नं. 2571, एम.जी. रोड , क्लॉथ मार्केट , अहमदनगर -414001 2. 7669196 10-11-06

13487

1992

सिंचाई उपकरण-इमीटर्स

जलश्री एग्रीटेक प्रा.लि. , गट संख्या 278 , देहूमोशी रोड, मोशी , जिला-पुणे-412105 3. 7672993 20-11-2006

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु

आभूषण/कृत्रिम शिल्पकृति

और चिन्हांकन

किरण ज्वैलर्स, एन.बी.आर्काड, मैन रोड, आकुडों, पीसीएमसी हास्पिटल के सामने,

पुणे-411035

4. 7676092 24-11-06 सीमेंस लिमिटेड , प्लॉट नं. ई-76, एमआईडीसी एरिया , कालुज , जिला-

औरंगाबाद-431136

घरेलू और समान प्रकार के उद्देश्यों के लिए अवशेषी करेंट चलित सर्किट ब्रेकर ( भाग-1 ): इंटीग्रल ओवर करेंट सुरक्षा सहित सर्किट ब्रेकर ( आरसीसीबी )

12640 1

2000 8

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007 /PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii))

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम संख्या

स्वीकृत करनेकी तिथि/वर्ष/माह

7676193 24-11-06

सीमेंस लिमिटेड , प्लॉट नं. ई-76 , एमआईडीसी एरिया, वालुज , जिला- औरंगाबाद-431136 27-11-06

6. 7676395

अनुभाग वर्ष

भाग

भा.मा. संख्या

12640

2001

घरेलू और समान प्रकार के उद्देश्यों के लिए अवशेषी करेंट चलित सर्किट ब्रेकर ( भाग -2 ): इंटीग्रल ओवर करेंट सुरक्षा सहित सर्किट ब्रेकर ( आरसीबीओ )

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु

आभूषण/कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति

और चिन्हांकन

पंडित वामन अष्टेकर 575 , सदाशिव पेठ, लक्ष्मी रोड, पुणे-411030

[संदर्भ: सीएमडी-1/ 13: 11 ] एस. के. चौधरी , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 28th December, 2006

S. O. 11.- In pursuance Sub- regulation (5 ) of Regulation 4 the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations , 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

Part Section Year IS No.

Title of the Standard

Grant Datc

Sl . No. No. Licence

Name and Address ofthe Party

1. 7668295 8-11-06

1417

1999

Gold and Gold alloys-

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

HariBalajiDedgaonkar H.No. 2571 , M.G. Road, ClothMarket , Ahmednagar-414001 2. 7669196 10-11-06

1992 13487

Irrigation equipment ---

Emitters

Jalshree Agritech Pvt. Ltd. , Gat No. 278 , Dehu Moshi Road , Moshi , District Pune-412105

3. 7672993 20-11-06

1999 1417

Gold andGold alloys-

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

Kiran Jewellers N.B. Arcade , Main Road , Akurdi , Opp PCMC Hospital , Pune-411035

4. 7676092 24-11-06 Siemens Ltd. , PlotNo. E-76 MIDC Area, Waluj , District Aurangabad- 431136

7676193 24-11-06

Siemens Ltd. , Plot No. E- 76, MIDC Area Waluj , District Aurangabad- 431136

27-11-06

6. 7676395

2000 12640 1

Residual current operated circuit-Breakers for house- hold and similar uses : Part 1 Circuit Breakers without integral overcurrent pro- tection (RCCBs )

12640 2

2001

Residual current operated circuit Breakers for house- hold and similar uses : Part 2 Circuit Breakers with integral overcurrent pro- tection (RCBOs)

1999 1417

Gold and Gold alloys-

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Fineness and Marking

Pandit Waman Ashtekar 575 , Sadashiv Peth , Laxmi Raod, Pune-411030

[Ref. CMD- 1 / 13 : 11 ] S.K. CHAUDHURI , Dy. Director General (Marks) 9

भारत' का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 12. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसें इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी) / भूमि/307 तारीख 29 अगस्त, 2006 कानिरीक्षण कलेक्टर , रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या. साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व) साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

राई पूर्व एवं राई पश्चिम ब्लाक

मांड़ रायगढ़ कोलफील्ड्स

जिला-रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

रेखांक संख्या - एसईसीएल / बीएसपी/ जीएम ( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/ 307 , तारीख 29 अगस्त , 2006 ( पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचित भूमि दर्शाते हुए ) ।

(क) राजस्व भूमि

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. सं.

बंदोबस्त नम्बर

हल्का नम्बर

199

बरौद

193

पोरडी

228

बिजारी

221

कुर्मीभावना

192

पोरडा

कांटाझरिया

27.

कठरापाली

(ख) वन भूमि

वन का किस्म वन का नाम

क्र. सं.

आरक्षित वन 1. राई आरक्षित वन

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्र हैक्ट में

जिला

तहसील

भाग

731.107

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

183.351

सम्पूर्ण घरघोडा

रायगढ़

भाग

057.013

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

भाग

338.863

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

भाग

626.448

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

भाग

60.474

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

भाग

252.910

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

योग : 2250,166 हैक्टयर

टिप्पणी

क्षेत्र हैक्ट. में

डिवीजन

रेंज

भाग

60.000

घरघोडा

रायगढ़

हैक्टयर

योग : 60,000

कुल बोग ( कख ) = 2250,166 + 60.000 = 2310.166 हैक्टयर ( लगभग ) या 5708.42 एकड़ ( लगभग ) 3986G1/06-2 10

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6,2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

सीमा वर्णन :

क-ख

रेखा कुरकेट नदी की ओर ग्राम बरौद की सम्मिलित सीमा पर " क "

ग-घ

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम करौद , पोरडी की उत्तरी सीमा , के साथ होते हुए जाती है उसके पश्चात् आरक्षित वन से गुजरती हुई " घ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है । घ- हु- च रेखा ग्राम काटांझरिया , कठरापाली से होते हुए जाती है और " च " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

च -छ

रेखा ग्राम कठरापाली , पोरडा की दक्षिणी सीमा से होते हुए जाती है तब भागतः ग्राम पोरडा की पश्चिम सीमा से होते हुए जाती है तथा " छ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है । छ -ज- झ रेखा ग्राम पोरडा , बिजारी , कुर्मीभावना से , बाद में भागतः ग्राम कुर्मीभावना की पश्चिमी सीमा से गुजरती हुई " झ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

झ-ञ-क रेखा ग्राम बरौद से , बाद में कुरकेट नदी की पूर्वी सीमा से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक " क " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/10/2006- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 29th December , 2006

S.O. 12. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

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

The planbearing number: SECL /BSP/GM (Plg )/Land/307 dated the 29th August , 2006 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Collector, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata- 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section ) , Seepat Raod, Bilaspur -495006 ( Chhattisgarh );

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in Sub- section ( 7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the officer- in charge or head of the department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur -495006 (Chhattisgarh), within ninety days from the date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE,

Rai East and Rai West Block

Mand Raigarh Coalfields, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

Plan No. SECL/BSP/GM (Plg ) /Land/ 307 dated 29 August, 2006 (Showing the land notified for prospecting) .

(A) Revenue land

Sl . No. Name of Village Halka number

Settlement number 1

Baroud

199

Tahsil

District Area in hectares Remarks

Gharghoda

Pordi

193

Gharghoda

Bijari

228

Gharghoda

4 Kurmibhauna

221

731.107

Raigarh

Part

183.351

Raigarh

Full

057.013

Part Raigarh

Gharghoda

Porda

192

Gharghoda

Kantajharia

Gharghoda

Katharrapali

Gharghoda

338.863

Raigarh

Part

626.448

Raigarh

Part

60.474

Raigarh

Part

252.910

Raigarh

Part Total : 2250.166 hectares 11 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी6 , 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(B) ForestLand

Remarks

Area in hectares

Division

Name of forest.

Sl . No.

Range

Type of forest

Part

60.000

Reserved forest

Raigarh

1 Rai reserved forest

Gharghoda

Total : 60.000 hectares Grand Total ( A+ B) 2,250.166 + 60.000 = 2310.166 hectares ( approximately) or 5,708.42 acres ( approximately) Boundary description:-

A-B Line starts from point "A" on common boundary of Kurket river and village .

C-D Baroud and passes along the northern boundary of villages Baroud, Pordi then through reserved forest and meets at point "D " .

DEF Line passes through village Kantajharia, Katharrapali and meets at point "F".

FG Line passes along the southern bounary of villages Katharrapali , Porda, then partly western boutidary of village Porda and meets at point "G" .

GHI Line passes through villages Porda, Bijari , Kurmibhauna, then partly along western boundary of village Kurmibhauna and meets at point "I" .

I-J-A Line passes through village Baroud then along eastern boundary of Kurket river and meets at the starting point "A" .

[F. No. 43015/10/2006 - PRIW -I ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 13.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है. कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने कीसंभावना है;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसें इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आश्य की सूचना देती है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र का रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम( पीएलजी )/ भूमि/308 तारीख 20 अगस्त, 2006 कानिरीक्षण कलेक्टर , रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता -700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीप्त रोड, बिलासपुर-495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिन के भीतर , भारसाधक अधिकारी या विभागाध्यक्ष ( राजस्व ) साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लि. , सीपत रोड , बिलासपुर -495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

पेलमा ब्लाक

मांड़ रायगढ़ कोलफील्ड्स

जिला-रायगढ़ ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

रेखांक संख्या- एसईसीएल /बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी )/भूमि/308 तारीख 20 सितम्बर , 2006 ( पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचित भूमिः दर्शाते हुए ) ।

(क ) राजस्व भूमि

टिप्पणी

जिला

क्षेत्र हैक्ट में

तहसील

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. सं.

बंदोबस्त नम्बर

हल्का नम्बर

640.173

सम्पूर्ण

188

घरघोडा

रायगढ़

पेलमा

428.796

रायगढ़

घरघोडा

सम्पूर्ण 2

उरबा 12

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

4 3

लालपुर

285 4

खर्रा

295 5

250 मडवाडूमर

जरहीडीह

113 7

हिन्झर

317 8

सेमीजोर

311 9

सक्ता

298 10

254 मिलूपारा

(ख ) वन भूमि

क्र. सं. वन का नाम

वन का किस्म

रेंज 1

तोलगे पूर्व

आरक्षित वन

तमनार 2 तोलगे पश्चिम

आरक्षित वन

तमनार 3

सिलोट

आरक्षित वन

तमनार

[PART II SBC. 3(ii)] 5

घरघोडा

284.577

रायगढ़

सम्पूर्ण

घरघोडा

78.000

रायगढ़

भाग

घरघोडा

92.252

रायगढ़

सम्पूर्ण

घरघोडा

रायगढ़

184.584

सम्पूर्ण

घरघोडा

273.892

रायगढ़

सम्पूर्ण

घरघोडा

85.000

भाग रायगढ़

घरघोडा

60.000

भाग रायगढ़.

घरघोडा

100.000

रायगढ़

भाग

योग : 2227,274 हैक्टयर डिवीजन

क्षेत्र हैक्ट, में

टिप्पणी

400.000

भाग रायगढ़

215.000

भाग रायगढ़

445.000

रायगढ़

भाग

हैक्टयर

योग : 1060,000

कुल योग : ( क + ख ) = 2227.274 + 1060,000 = 3287,274 हैक्टयर ( लगभग ) या 8122.85 एकड़ ( लगभग ) सीमा वर्णन :

क-ख- रेखा केलो नदी और तोलगे पश्चिम आरक्षित वन की सम्मिलित सीमा पर " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और तोलगे पश्चिमः ग-घ

आरक्षित वन से गुजरती हुई " घ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है । घ-ड़-

च -छ

रेखा ग्राम सेमोजोर , तोलगे पूर्व आरक्षित वन ग्राम बाझीखोल की उत्तरी सीमा के साथ होते हुए बाद में तोलगे पूर्व आरक्षित वन से गुजरती हुई " छ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है । छ-ज -झ रेखा , तोलगे पूर्व आरक्षित वन से होते हुए जाती है फिर ग्राम मिलूपारा , सक्ता , खर्रा से गुजरती हुई " झ " बिन्दु पर मिलती है । झ-क

रेखा सिलोट आरक्षित वन से होते हुए जाती है फिर केलो नदी के किनारे के साथ ग्राम पेलमा की पश्चिमी सीमा , जोकि केलो नदी का किनारा भी है , से गुजरती है और आरंभिक " क " बिन्दु पर मिलती है।

[फा. सं. 43015/ 11/2006- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू- I ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th December, 2006

S.O. 13. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed:

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

The plan bearing number: SECL/BSP/GM (plg )/Land/308 dated the 20 September , 2006 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Collector , Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in the office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section) , Seepat Raod, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh) .

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Allpersons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in Sub - section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the officer - in- charge or head of the department (Revenue) , South EasternCoalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh ), within ninety days from the date of publication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

Pelma Block

MandRaigarh Coalfields , District Raigarh ( Chhattisgarh)

Plan No. SECL/BSP/GM (Plg) /Land/308 dated 20 September, 2006 ( Showing the land notified for prospecting) .

(A) Revenue land

Tahsil

Patwari Halka

Name of Village

Sl . No.

Settlement number

number

Remarks

Area in hectares

District

Full

640.173

Raigarh

Gharghoda

188

Pelma

Full

428.796

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Urba

285

Gharghoda

Lalpur

295

Full

284.577

Raigarh

Part

78.000

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Kharra

250.

Gharghoda

Madwadumar

113

Gharghoda

Jarhidih

317

Gharghoda

Hinjhar

311

Gharghoda

Semijor

298

Full

92.252

Raigarh

Fufl

184.584

Raigarh

Full

273.892

Raigarh

Part

85.000

Raigarh

Part

60.000

Raigarh

Gharghoda

Sakta

254

Gharghoda

Milupara

(B) Forest Land

Range

Typeofforest

Name of forest

Sl . No.

Tamnar

Reserved forest

TolgeEast

Tamnar

Reserved forest

Tolge West

Tamnar

Reserved forest

Silot

Part

100.000

Raigarh

Total : 2227.274 hectares

Remarks Area in hectares

Division

Part

400.000

Raigarh

Part

215.000

Raigarh

Part

445.000

Raigarh

1060,000 hectares

Total :

Grand Total (A+B) 2227.274+ 1060.000 = 3287.274 hectares (approximately) or 8122.85 acres (approximately) Boundarydescription:-

A-BC-D Line starts from point " A " on common boundary of Kelo river and West Tolge reserved forest and passes through West Tolge reserved forest and meets at point "D"

DEFG Line passes through village Semijor and East Tolge reserved forest, than along northern boundary of village Bazikhol and then through East Tolge reserved forest and meets at point "G" .

GHI Line passes through East Tolge reserved forest, then through villages Milupara, Sakta, Kharra and meets at point "I".

I-A

Line passes through Silot reserved forest, then along western boundary of village Pelmia, along the bank of Kelo river and meets at the starting point "A" .

[F.No. 43015/ 11/2006-PRIW- I ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii )] पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 14.-केन्दीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता हे कि मध्य प्रदेश में मांगल्या (इन्दौर) संस्थापन' से हरयाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिये उसमे उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नन्दी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, मुम्बई-मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, 1 - सी, बाल मंदिर कॉलोनी, होटल पिंक पैलेस के पास , सवाई माधोपुर 322001 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : मलारना डूंगर जिला:

राज्य : राजस्थान

सवाई माधोपुर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1

1 पीलवा नदी

653

0.0550

651/1, 2

0.0170

478

0.0450

587

0.0060

655,655/1

0.0500

650

0.2160

398

0.0600

623

0.0800

576

0.0316

477

0.1900

485

0.0800

[फा. सं. आर-31015/88/2004-ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 15 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. O. 14.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

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

Anyperson, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority, Mumbai- Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1 - C, Bal Mandir Colony, Near Hotel Pink Palace, Sawai Madhopur- 322001 ( Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : MALARNA, DUNGER DISTRICT : SAWAI MADHOPUR STATE : RAJASTHAN

SURVEY NO .

S.No. NAME OF VILLAGE

AREA IN HECTARE 1

653

1 PILWA NADI

0.0550

0.0170

651/1, 2

478

0.0450

587

0.0060

0.0500

655,655/1

650

0.2160

0.0600

398

623

0.0800

0.0316

576

477

0.1900

485

0.0800

[F. No. R -31015/88 /2004 -O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 15.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2920 तारीख 28 जुलाई, 2006, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 29 जुलाई 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 14 सितम्बर , 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

तहसील : सांगोद

जिला: कौटा

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1 2

289

0.0220

1 माण्डूहेड़ा

617

0.1440

2 खजूरी

3 बंदा

0.1225

208

0.0505

1671/1936

4 कुराड

0.0890

1660

0.0310

1691

0.0300

1665

0.0350

1661

0.0600

[फा. सं. आर-31015/76/2004-ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 17

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/ पौष 16 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S.O. 15. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2920, dated the 28th July, 2006, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 29th July , 2006, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh, to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 14 September, 2006;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

SCHEDULE

STATE : RAJASTHAN

DISTRICT : KOTA

TEHSIL : SANGOD

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO .

NAME OF VILLAGE

S.No.

0.0220

289

MANDUHEDA

0.1440

617

KHAJURI

0.1225

BANDA

0.0505

208

0.0890

1671/1936

4 KURAD

0.0310

1660

0.0300

1691

0.0350

1665

0.0600

1661

[F. No. R-31015/76/2004-O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy. 3986G1/06-3 18

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 16.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम. 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया हैं) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3269 तारीख 14 अगस्त, 2006, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 19 अगस्त, 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन लक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 03 अक्टूबर , 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

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

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

अनुसूची

तहसील: होडल

जिला: फरीदाबाद

राज्य: हरियाणा क्र०

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में 1

1 .

पैंगलतु

63/20

0.0170

भूपगढ़ उर्फ टिकरी

15/15

0.0570

[फा. सं. आर-31015/91/2004- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 19 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 3rd January , 2007.

G S. O. 16.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3269 , dated the 14th August , 2006, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 19th August, 2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 03rd October, 2006;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the tand , specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

SCHEDULE

STATE: HARYANA TEHSIL : HODAL

DISTRICT : FARIDABAD

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO .

S.NO.

NAME OF VILLAGE

0.0170

63/20

PAINGALTU

0.0570

15/15

BHUPGARH alias TIKRI

[ F. No. R - 31015/91/2004-O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 17.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3119 तारीख 08 अगस्त, 2006 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 12 अगस्त, 2006 , में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई - मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 9 अक्टूबर , 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

राज्य राजस्थान

तहसील: रूपबास

जिला : भरतपुर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क्र०

0.0052

209

1 जयचौली

0.0136

184

0.0136

187

0.0475

192

0.0125

299

0.0371

304

0.0600

157 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

21 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

712

अंधियारी

0.0300

713

0.0285

0.0300

कुन्देर

0.0350

100

0.0500

478

0.0450

477

0.0314

424

0.0500

[फा. सं. आर-31015/86/2004- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. O. 17.-Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number SO NO . 3119 DATED 08-08-2006 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 12th August, 2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya ( Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 9th October, 2006.

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land, specified in the schedule, appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii )]

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : ROOPBAS

DISTRICT : BHARATPUR

STATE : RAJASTHAN S.No.

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE 1

JAICHAULI

209

0.0052

184

0.0136

187

0.0136

192

0.0475

299

0.0125

304

0.0371

157

0.0600 2 ANDHIYARI

712

0.0300

713

0.0285 3

KUNDER

0.0300

0.0350

100

0.0500

478

0.0450

477

0.0314

424

0.0500

[ F. No. R - 31015/86/2004-O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 18.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम. 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया हैं) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3632 तारीख 07 सितम्बर, 2006 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 09 सितम्बर , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई - मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 12 अक्टूबर, 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

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

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

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

अनुसूची

तहसील: पलवल

जिला: फरीदाबाद

राज्य: हरियाणा क्र०

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में 1

हरफली

0.1570

14/7}

[फा. सं. आर-31015/1 /2005- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. O. 18.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3632 , dated the 07th September , 2006, issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 09th September , 2006, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline; Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 12th October , 2006;

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

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule, appended to this notification,is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA16,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

STATE : HARYANA

DISTRICT : FARIDABAD

TEHSIL : PALWAL

AREA IN HECTARE NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

S.NO.

0.1570

HARPHALI

[F. No. R -31015/1 /2005-O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 19.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य मे पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र मे बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादकों के परिवहन के लिये भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइप लाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

5007 कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध मे श्री लाल सिंह सक्षम प्राधिकारी मुम्बई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 179 विश्व लक्ष्मी नगर मथुरा-281004 (उत्तर प्रदेश ) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 25 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: उत्तर प्रदेश

जिला: मथुरा

तहसील: छाता

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क०

0.0420 2

0.0675 आझईकला

1120

0.0078 आझईखुर्द

1226

0.0226

1228

0.0214

1231

0.0296

1247

0.0290

0.0044 अजनौठी

0.0560

398

0.0144

457

0.0810

470

0.0820

0.0032 अकबरपुर

0.0032

: 12

0.0702

0.0408

0.1920

135

0.0150

210

0.0450

272

0.0012

273

0.0048

417

0.0150

967

0.0140

0.0114 बरौली

0.0050

103

0.0576

112

0.0144

119

0.0066

120

0.0470

135

0.0010

605

0.1326 चौंमुहा

669

0.0210

1040

0.0570

1072

0.0864

1073

0.0300

1080

0.0108

1085

0.5694

437

0.0110 खरौट

443

0.1334

658

0.1320

661

0.0020

675

0.1240

680

0.1602

688

3986G1/06-4 26

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

क०

ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे नंबर 1.

3 17.

खरौट(जारी....)

1338

1358 8

सैंमरी

275

325

336 9.

हथाना

793/3

796

797

973

1022

1024

1032

1075

1148

1150

1152 10.

फालैन

115

120

128

130

131

132

208/5

212

435

438

467 1

520

523

587

593

611 11.

छाताखास

546

549

690

696

706

708

758

768

791

813

815 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

0.0852

0.2394

0.1300

0.1308

0.0050

0.0210

0.0522

0.0370

0.1040

0.1667

0.0225

0.0300

0.0012

0.1170

0.1090

0.2050

0.0210

0.0396

0.0684

0.0300

0.0540

0.0120

0.0352

0.0370.

0.0594

0.1182

0.1710

0.0270

0.1240

0.0500

0.0226

0.0860

0.0102

0.0138

0.0516

0.0386

0.0354

0.0140

0.0420

0.0480

0.0100

0.0065

0.0196

завесвое 85

27 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क०

३

0.0250

4.2

817

11.

छाताबास (जारी...)

$0.0864

823

010100

845/1

0.0028

889

0,0828

890

0.0100

892

0.0484

909

[फा. सं. आर-31015/4/2005- ओ.आर. - 11 ]E

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

A S. O.19. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the state of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited .

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

a Now therefore in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of right of User in Land ) Act , 1962(50 of1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein:

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition ofthe right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri LAL SINGH, Competent Authority, Mumbai Manglya Pipeline Extension Project Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 179 Viswa Laxmi Nagar Mathura- 281004 (UttarPradesh) 28

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : CHHАТА

DISTRICT: MATHURA

STATE: UTTAR PRADESH S.NO.

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE 1.

AAJHIKALAN

0.0420 2.

AAJHAIKHURD

1120

0.0675

1226

0.0078

1228

0.0226

1231

0.0214

1247

0.0296 3.

AJANAUTHI

0.0290

.31

0.0044

398

0.0560

457

0.0144

470

0.0810 4.

AKBARPUR

0.0820

0.0032

0.0702

96.

0.0408

135

0.1920

210

0.0150

272

0.0450

273

0.0012

417

0.0048

967

0.0150 5.

BAROULI

0.0140

0.0114

103

0.0050

112

0.0576

119

0.0144

120

0.0066

135

0.0470 6.

CHAUMUHAN

605

0.0010

669

0.1326

1040

0.0210

1072

0.0570

1073

0.0864

1080

0.0300 :

1085

0.0108 7.

KHAROT

437

0.5694

443

0.0110

658

0.1334

661

0.1320

675

0.0020

680

0.1240

688

0.1602 29

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

SURVEY NO. NAME OF VILLAGE

S.NO.

1338 7.

KHAROT(Contd .... )

1358

275 :SENMARI

325

336

793/3 HATHANA

796

797

973

1022

1024

1032

1075

1148

1150

1152

115 PHALAIN

10.

120

128

130

131

132

208/5

212

435

438

467

520

523

587

593

611

546 11.

CHHATAKHAS

549

690

696

706

708

758

768

791

813

815 AREA IN HECTARE

0.0852

0.2394

0.1300

0.1308

0.0050

0.0210

0.0522

0.0370

0.1040

0.1667.

0.0225

0.0300

0.0012

0.1170

0.1090

0.2050

0.0210

0.0396

0.0684

0.0300

0.0540

0.0120

0.0352

0.0370

0.0594

0.1182

0.1710

0.0270

0.1240

0.0500

0.0226

0.0860

0.0102

0.0138

0.0516/

0.0386

0.0354

0.0140

0.0420

0.0480

0.0100

0.0065

0.0196 30

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] S.NO. NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE 1.

11.

817

CHHTAKHAS ( Contd ... )

0.0250

823

0.0864

845/1

0.0100

889

0.0928

890

0.0828

892

0.0100

909

0.0484

[F. No. R -31015/4/2005 -O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 20. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य मे पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र मे बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादकों के परिवहन के लिये भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइप लाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध मे श्री लाल सिंह सक्षम प्राधिकारी मुम्बई - मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 179 विश्व लक्ष्मी नगर मथुरा-281004 (उत्तर प्रदेश) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 31

भारत का राजपत्र जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची तहसील: जता

राज्य: उत्तर प्रदेश

जिला : मथुरा

सर्वे नंबर ग्राम का नाम

57 1.

बहरावली

105 बिडावली

107

चन्दौरी

119

132

138

195

499

202

1321 4.

66 गुहेता सतबिसा

203

250 क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

-0.0142

0.0048

0.0280

0.0170

0.0100

0.0374

0.0112

0.0086

0.0074

0.0042

0.0210

0.0100

0.0010

0.0132

0.0014

0.0160

0.0014

0.0884

[फा. सं. आर-31015/4/2005 - ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. 0.20. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the state of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi 'should be laid by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.

Now therefore în exercise of powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals 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 land described in the said Schedule , may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sfiri LAL SINGH, Competent Authority, Mumbai Manglya Pipeline Extension Project Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 179 Viswa Laxmi Nagar Mathura- 281004 (Uttar Pradesh ) 32

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY8, 2007 /PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : CHHАТА

DISTRICT: MATHURA

S.NO. NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

STATE : UTTAR PRADESH AREA IN HECTARE 2

BAHARWALI

0.0142

0.0048

105

BIDAWALI

0.0280

CHANDAURI

107

0.0170

119

0.0100

132

0.0374

138

0.0112

195

0.0086

199

0.0074

202

0.0042

321

0.0210

GUHETA SATBISA

0.0100

0.0010

0.0132

0.0014

0.0160

203

0:0014

250

0.0884

[F. No. R -31015/4/2005-O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 21.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य मे पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र मे बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादकों के परिवहन के लिये भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइप लाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध मे श्री लाल सिंह सक्षम प्राधिकारी मुम्बई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड 179 विश्व लक्ष्मी नगर मथुरा-281004 (उत्तर प्रदेश) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 33

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: उत्तर प्रदेश

जिला: मथुरा

छाता

तहसील:

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क०

0.056

190

बरचावली

0.0198

225

0.0980

261

0.0324

273

[फा. सं. आर-31015/4/2005- ओ. आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. O. 21.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the state of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited..

Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that for the Purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto:

Now therefore in exercise of powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of right of User in Land ) Act, 1962(50 of1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein:

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule , may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition ofthe right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri LAL SINGH , Competent Authority, Mumbai Manglya Pipeline Extension Project BharatPetroleum Corporation Limited 179 Viswa Laxmi Nagar Mathura -281004 (UttarPradesh)

3986GI/06-5 34

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : CHНАТА

DISTRICT: MATHURA

STATE : UTTAR PRADESH S.NO.

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE 2

BARCHAWALI

190

0.056

225

0.0198

261

0.0980

273

0,0324

[ F. No. R -31015/4/2005-O.R. -II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 22. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2068 तारीख 25 मई , 2006 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 27 मई , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे ) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 28 जुलाई , 2006 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 35

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिला: सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

1043 बांबवडे

1044

1045

1046

1047

1050

1052

1053

1081

1080

1163

1162

1164

1165

1232

1233

1234

1230

1220

201

202

206

200

232

209

230

228

242

227

286

288

289

290

291

306

303

304

302

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

00 03

00 08

75 00 15

44 00 28

42 00 57

76 32 00

00 16

07 65

00 27

09.

0038

00 06

00 18

00 82

00 01

00 29

00 10

00 25

00 06

15 93

00 18

00 07

00 03

08 36

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं.

उप -खण्ड सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

301

बांबवडे (निरंतर)

00 08

300

00 03 60

299

00 12 96

298

00 13 68

कुल

07 24 42

[फा. सं. आर-31015/27/2004-ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. O. 22.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2068 , dated the 25th May , 2006 , issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 27th May , 2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune) to Pakni (Solapur ) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 28th July , 2006;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/ पौष 16, 1928

SCHEDULE

Taluka: PALUS

State: MAHARASHTRA

District: SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameof the Village

4 2

1 BAMBAVADE

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1050

1052

1053

1081

1080

1163

1162

1164

1165

1232

1233

1234

1230

1220

201

202

206

200

232

209

230

228

242

227

286

288

289

290

291

306

303

304

302

Area

Sub-Division No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

00 03 78

00 03 96

00 08 64

00 10 62

00 11 52

00 15 75

00 16 20

00 28 44

00 57 42

00 76 32

00 16 20

00 07 65

00 27 12

00 00.60

00 23 91

00 18 959

00 82 17

00 25 38

00 01 17

00 01 08

00 24 30

01 80

00 29 70

00 05 76

00 06 48

00 10 44

00 25 38

00 00 70 1

00 06 68

00 15 93

00 18 72

00 08 46

00 28 70

00 07 74

00 03 24

10 08

00 38

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

State: MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

Sub-Division No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8

301

1 BAMBAVADE ( Contd . )

08 64

300

00 03 60

299

00 12 96

298

00 13 68

Total

07 24 42

[ F. No. R -31015/27/2004-O.R. -II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

, का. आ. 23.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3634 तारीख 7 सितंबर 2006, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 9 सितंबर, 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे ) से पकनी (सोलापुर ) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 अक्तुबर , 2006 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

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

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16 , 1928 ITI

अनुसूची

जिला : सांगली

राज्य:महाराष्ट्र तालुका: फ्लुस

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

संख्या हेक्टर उप-खण्ड

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

736

80 1 आंधली

739

00 01

711

00 01 36

636

00 06

00 02 10

577

290

214

00 09

ब

184

00 23

कुल

1230

00 06 05 2 बांबवडे

286

00.06

कुल

00 27 90

3 हजारवाडी

00 25

00 53 10

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/27/2004- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2007

S. O. 23.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3634 , dated the 7th September, 2006 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 9th September , 2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying, an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune ) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 30thOctober, 2006;

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

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

SCHEDULE

Taluka : PALUS

District: SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division No.

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare Sq.mt 2

7 8 1 ANDHALI

736

739

00 01 75

711

00 01 36

636

00 06 87

577

00 02 10

290

00 00 96

214

00 09 21

184

00 00 58

Total

00 23 63 2 BAMBAVADE

1230

00 06 05

286

00 00 24

Total

00 06 29 3 HAZARWADI

00 27 90

00 25 20

Total

00 53 10

[ F. No. R -31015/ 27/ 2004-O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 24.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2614 तारीख 5 जुलाई, 2006 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 8 जुलाई, 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे ) से पकनी (सोलापुर ) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 18 सितंबर, 2006 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 41 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिला: सोलापुर

तालुका: मंगलवेढा

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर

उप-खण्ड संख्या

कम सं .

00 06

3542

1 मंगलवेढा

00 07

3543

00 09

3359

00 09

3359

00 32 63

कुल

00 14

307

2 मुढवी

00 01

284

00 90 91

306

00 16 37

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/22/2004- ओ.आर.- II]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January , 2007

S. O. 24.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2614 , dated the 5th July, 2006, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 8th July, 2006 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune ) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 18th September , 2006;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

3986GI/06-6 42

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16,1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Taluka: MANGALVEDHA

District : SOLAPUR

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub-Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No.

Name of the Village

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8 1 MANGALVEDHA

3542

00 06 06

3543

07 86

3359

09 36

3359

00 09 35

Total

32 63 2 MUDHVI

307

00 14 30

284

00 01 16

306

00 91

Total

00 18 37

[ F. No. R - 31015/22/2004-O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 4 जनवरी , 2007

का. आ. 25. - केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनयिम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमे इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का आ 631 तारीख 21 फरवरी , 2005 ( जिसे संख्या का आ 2763 तारीख 5 अगस्त, 2005 के द्वारा संसोधित किया गया था जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 6 अगस्त, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी) जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 26 फरवरी , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेटोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड , द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 सितम्बर , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी :

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 43 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: सवाई माधोपुर

तहसील: मलारना डूंगर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

क्र०

0.0288

270

1. मकसूदनपुरा

271

0.2115 [फा. सं. आर-31015 / 88/2004- ओ. आर. - 1 ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th January , 2007

m S. O. 25.-Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 631 dated the 21st February , 2005 (which was amended vide number S.O. 2763 dated 5th August, 2005 published theGazette of India dated the 6th August , 2005) , issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 26th February , 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of Petroleum Products through Mumbai-Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and -Bijwasan in the NCT, of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 30th September, 2005;. Andwhereas the competent authority has , under sub -section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL: MALARNA DUNGER DISTRICT : SAWAI MADHOPUR STATE : RAJASTHAN

AREA IN HECTARE

SURVEY NO.

NAME OF VILLAGE

S.No.

0.0288

270

1. MAKSUDANPURA

0.2115

271

[F. No. R -31015/88/2004-O.R. -II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16, 1928

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 26.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विषाद् में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सख्या 18/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -12011/151/2005- आई आर( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006 S.O. 26 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank, and their workman , received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.

[No. L- 12011 /151/2005 - IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Present:

Shri A. R. Şiddiqui , Presiding Officer Dated 28th November , 2006

C. R. No. 18/06

I PARTY

II PARTY

The General Manager ( P) , SyndicateBank , General Manger's Office , No. 69 , 9th Main , III Block , Jayanagar, Bangalore -560011 The General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association , 2nd Floor , Near to Tourist Hotel, Anand Rao Circle , Bangalore- 560009

AWARD

1.The CentralGovernment 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- 1201 1 / 151 /2005 - IR (B - II ) , dated 28th April , 2006 for adjudication on the following schedule :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of reduction in

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] basic pay by one stage , non releasing of annual increment as on 1-02-2004 and effecting recovery of Rs . 19,945.89 as financial loss from Smt. R.E. Jane , Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Shoolay Branch , Bangalore is legal and justified? If not , to what relief she is entitled to?"

2. After the reciept of the reference from the Government, notices were taken against the parties . On 26-5-2006, General Secretary of the first party Union representing the first party workman file an authority letter onbehalf of the first party. On 14-7-2006, Second party made appearance through Counsel. From 26-5-2006 till 22- 9-2006, the matter came to be adjourned for filing of the Claim Statement by the first party or by the first party union onbehalf of the first party.but not done . Then the matter came to be posted for Counter Statement of the Management and the Management also failed to file any Counter Statement . Therefore , the matter is posted for award.

3. Since , the first party has not filed her claim statement challenging the impugned punishment as per the reference schedule referred to supra, it goes without saying that she has not discharged the burden cast upon her of course , as per the reference schedule the primary burden was cast upon the management to justify its action in imposing the punishment in question but at the same time it was incumbent on the part of the first party to have come forward with the claim statement making out the grounds as to why the punishment impugned was not justified . From the conduct of the first party as well as the first party union in not filing the Claim Statement and in not prosecuting the proceedings despite several opportunities given tothem it would lead to an inference that they are no more interested in prosecuting the proceedings. In the result, the impugned punishment order passed against the first party cannot be interfered and hence the followirig award:

AWARD

The reference stands dismissed . No costs .

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me on 28th November 2006 ).

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 27.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , असनसोल -4 के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 64/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-12012/374/ 1995 - आई, आर( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 45

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2006

S.O. 27. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Asansol -4 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.

[No. L- 12012/374/1996- IR (B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

adjudication of the dispute, a reference Case No. 64of 1997 was registered on 17-11-97 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear inthe court on the date fixed and file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their case. Pursuant to the said order notices through the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Sri Suprajit Kumar Das , Manager ( PRS ) appeared for the management and Sri NK. Basu, Vice President ofthe union appeared for the workmen . Written statements were filed on behalf of both the parties in support oftheir claims .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNTMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer

Reference No. 64 of 1997

Parties:

Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Asansol,

Burdwan

Versess

Fromperusal ofthe record it transpires that the case was fixed for cross - examination of the witnesses on 29-10-2004 but no witness was present on that date . For the last one year the case was fixed for the said purpose but the cross -examination of the witness could be completed due to the reason best known to the union . It is further clear from the record that the union left taking any step on behalf of the workmen since 20-4-05 to 31-10-06. Several adjournments were granted to the union to appear inthe court andto take suitable step on its behalf but to no effect. It appears that the union has no interest and does .not want to proceed with the case any further Vice President, Central Bank of India Employees ' Union, Calcutta.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Intheprevailing facts and circumstance of the case . It is not proper and advisable to keep the record periding any more in anticipation of the appearance of the Union to pursue its case. As such it is hereby

For the management : Sri S. K. Das , Manager (PRS) .

ORDERED

Forthe union (Workman) : Sri N.K. Basu, Vice President of the union .

: Bank

INDUSTRY

STATE

: West Bengal .

that let a "No Dispute Award " be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

Dated the 31-10-2006.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर , 2006 In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/ 374/96/ IR(B - II ) dated 07-11-97 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 28.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कॉरपोरेशन " बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रमं न्यायालय , नं. 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 398/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीयं सरकार को7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12012/ 127/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006 "Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India, Asansol ofdiscontinuing the existing facilities of CCA and HRA at the rate of Asansol Branch at J. K. Nagar extension counter to Sh . Sushil Kr . Shaw and Sh . Shib Kali Bandyopadhyay employees at J.K.Nagar extension counter is justified? If not , to what relief the concerned employees are entitled to ?"

S.O. 28. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 398/ 2k5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Afterhaving received the Order No. L-22012/374/96/ IR(B - II), dated 07-11-97 of the aforesaid reference fromthe Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for 46

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SHC . 3 ( ii)] Labour Court, Chandigarh No. II as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Manager , Corporation Bank G.T. Road and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.

[No. L- 12012/127/2000- IR (B - II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, CHANDIGARH

SHRI KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

CASE No. I. D. No. 398/2k5 .

Registered on 19-08-2005

compensation; and that the Management after terminating her services engaged one Naresh Kumar , that the work in the Management Bank was of permanent nature but the management did not follow the mandatory provisions of law and Industrial Dispute Act and terminated his services . TheManagement has denied the claim of the workman and stated that she was engaged on Casual basis one hour a day from 9 am to 10 am on payment of Rs . 20/- per hour whereas Naresh Kumar was appointed on regular basis after following the due procedure . According to them the Management has not violated any provisions of the Act. The workman filed the rejoinder as well as her affidavit whereas the management filed the affidavit of their witness Amarjit and also placed on record the photo copies of the payment vouchers .

Date of Decision 10-11-2006 .

Smt . Kamla W/o Shri Mahender , V. Sondhapur , Tehsil and District Panipat

-Petitioner

Versus

TheManager , Corporation Bank , G.T. Road , Near Hotel Regency , Panipat

The case was at the stage of production of evidence bythe parties when the workman stopped appearing in the case . Even earlier she stopped appearing in the case , therefore , the reference was answered in her absence . Later on the award was set aside and fresh proceedings were started . The workman has again behaved in the same fashion and there is absolutely no doubt to hold that the workman is not present despite due notice to her.

-Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman : Sh . Ajay Singh Rana and Others-AR

For the Management : Sh. H. P. Singh , Advocate .

AWARD

Onrecord I do not find any evidence to support the claim of the workman . There are only pleadings , the claim and rebuttal but no proof. The affidavits of witnesses of the parties are on record but not proved , therefore , whatever documents are produced have not been proved , therefore, the same cannot be read . There is , therefore , no evidence to support the claim of the workman that the termination of her services by the management on 18th May, 1999 was illegal and unjust . She is therefore entitled to no relief. The award is passed against her holding that she is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after duc completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 29.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 The workman is not present . She has not appeared in this Tribunal on any date despite number of notices issued to her. Ultimately a notice under R/ C was issued to her on 31st August , 2006 under Postal Receipt No. 2264 dated 1st September, 2006. The R/ C carrying the notice has been received' back with the report of the Postal authorities that the addressee could not be traced out on the address given . It may be noted that a notice to the workman was given on the address available in the reference . This was the address when the award was passed against her on 15th October , 2001. In number of documents which are part of this file , the address given by the workman is the same . Other than this there is no address available on which the workman could be served . It is in these circumstances the case of the workman is being considered in het absence .

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चड़ीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 917/2k5 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Govt . of India vide their notification No.

[सं. एल -12012/10/1998- आई आर( बी -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006

L-120 12/127/2000 dated 18th October, 2000 referred the matter to this Tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the Management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Smt . Kamla, Sweeper w.e.f. 18th May, 1999 was just and legal and if not to what relief she was entitled to . The workman in her statement of claim has stated that she was appointed as Sweeper on 7th Feb. , 1998 on a monthly salary of Rs . 480 but her services were terminated on 18th May, 1999 without any notice ,

S.O. 29. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 917/2k5 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Chandigarh , No. II , as shown in the Annexure , in the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Industrial dispute between the management of The Regional Manager , PNB and their workman, received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 10/ 1998 - IR (B - II) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16 , 1928

before or thereafter. It was in these circumstances that arguments on the fairness of the inquiry were heard Ex- parte.

I have considered the submission made by the management and have also gone through the record .

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH SHRI KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 917/2k5.

Registered on 15-09-2005

Date of Decision 07-11-2006 .

Kchar Chand S/o Shri Thakur Dass , Opp. Police Station, Mahilpur, Hoshiarpur

-Petitioner

Versus

Punjab National Bank , The Regional Manager , PNB ,

Hoshiarpur

-Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman :

Shri Chhota Singh-AR

Shri S. K. Verma AR

For the Management :

AWARD

The Govt . of India vide their order No. L- 12012/ 10/98 - IR ( B - II ) dated 8 /9th October, 1998 referred the following dispute for the adjudication of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of Punjab National Bank , represented by the Regional Manager , PNB , Hoshiarpur in imposing punishment ofdismissal from services upon Shri Kchar Chand, Ex -Clerk-cum- Cashier is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The notice of the reference was given to the management . The workman appeared through Counsel whereas Management appears through . Sh . S.K. Verma their representative . Workman filed his statement of claim. The Management opposed to the appearance of the workman through a Counsel, therefore , the Tribunal directed the workman to engage some other representative . The Management filed the Written Statement . They also placed on record photo copies of documents marked as Annexure 1 to 25. They also placed on record photo copies of complete inquiry proceedings . The perusal of the file shows that on most of the days the workman remained absent from the Court whereas the Management appeared through representative . On 13th Feb. , 2004 the Tribunal directed that the case shall come up for the consideration of fairness of inquiry . After the matter was transferred to this Tribunal the workman appeared only once on 20th Jan. , 2006 , neither Stated in brief the claim of the workman is that he was appointed as Clerk- cum-Cashier vide order dated 14thApril , 1978. During the course of his employment he became the active member of Class three employces of the Management Bank and represented the workers against the harassment and injustice met to the members of the Union due to which the management became revengeful against him; that on 19th July, 1991 he was charge sheeted for having made wrong entries in the pass book of the customer and for pocketing the money received from them instead of depositing same in the Bank ; that the Management initiated inquiry against him, but he could not attend the same due to his illness . His request for deferring the inquiry was not acceded to ; that the Management not only held an Ex - parte inquiry but also did not examine the customers as witnesses whose pass books were allegedly contained the false entries made by the workman . The workman was not provided with the opportunity to engage a co - worker to defend himself, in the inquiry. He was ultimately dismissed from service on 9th Sep. , 1992. His appeal was also dismissed without passing a speaking order. It is further the claim of the workman that due to his alleged mis conduct no financial was caused to the Bank nor it affected its reputation ; that the workman being a local of Mahilpur , having friends al relatives in the area , it may be that because of good reputation some friends and relatives got the entries in their pass book made by him in good faith . However, noboxly came forward to allege that he had made wrong catrics in the pass book and had pocketed the moncymor deposited ; that after his appeal was dismissed he filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court , in which the Hon'ble HighCourt relegated the workman to the alternative remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act . He, in the end , has prayed for declaring the order of termination of his services dated 28th Jan. , 1993 bad in law. He has also prayed for reinstatement in service with full back wages and interest thereon .

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman taking preliminary objections that the workman cannot be represented by Shri C.H. Jhim who accordingto them is a practicing Lawyer; and that the claim made by the workman is barred by limitation having been filed after a gap of 4 and 5 years .

Onfacts it is claimed by the management that they had received a number of complaints against the workman that he has received the money from depositors but has not deposited the same in the Bank . Thereupon , the workman was placed under suspension on 7th Junc, 1991 and was served with charge sheet . The workman , however, didnot reply the charge sheet . The Management appointed 48

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (іі))

absence on 9th Sep. , 1992. They also denied that no speaking order was passed by the appellate authority or that the order was passed without the application of mind by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities . It is also denied that the workman was also not allowed to engage as a co-worker to assist him in the inquiry proceedings , but nobody had come forward to state anything against him. According to them the Management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry against the workman and the punishment awarded to him is not disproportionate . No financial institution can afford to continue with the officials who have doubtful integrity and who swindle away the public money and thereby effect the reputation of the institution like the Bank . They have prayed for dismissal of the workman from the Bank .

Ihave gone through the file and have also considered the submissions made by the Management . It is already noted that the workman has not appeared in this Tribunal except once and virtually he disassociated from the proceedings .

the inquiry officer , Presenting Officer and informed the workman about the development. The inquiry proceedings started on 15th October , 1991 a notice thereof was given to the workman. But he did not appear and ultimately the Ex- parte inquiry was concluded on 17th Feb. , 1992. The charges against the workman were proved . The Disciplinary Authority, after examining the inquiry report, and the documents attached therewith found the workman guilty of the misconduct which was of serious nature . He proposed the punishment of dismissal of the workman from service . The show- cause notice thereof was issued on 30th August, 1992 to the workman, who was also provided with the copy of the inquiry report dated 22nd June, 1992 . The workman was also given the option to appear in person before the Disciplinary Authority on 28th August, 1992 at 3.30 pm in his office . The workman appeared and sought a week's time to submit his reply and personal submission. Acceding to the prayer of the workman , the matter was placed on 7th Sep. , 1992 at 3.30 pm for the consideration of Disciplinary Authority but the workman did not come and ultimately the Disciplinary Authority ordered the dismissal ofworkmen from service vide order dated 29th Sep. , 1992.

3. The claim of the Management further is that the workman had appealed against the order of dismissal to the Zonal Manager who was the Appellate Authority. He was also givenpersonal hearing by the Appellate Authority on 12th Dec. , 1992. After due consideration of the submission made by the workman in person and after examining the record of the file , the Appellate Authority did not find any merit in the appeal of the workman and rejected the same vide its order dated 28th Jan. , 1993. It is further the claim of the Management that the Management has followed the provisions of By -Partite Settlement as amended from time to time. They had also followed the principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry. Denying the claim of the workman that the management had become inimical towards the workman because of its Trade Union activities , it is submitted by them that the workman was proceeded against for his having making false entries in the pass book. They denied that any outside evidence was created against the workman or that the workman could not participate in the inquiry proceedings due to his illness rather his non participation in the inquiry was deliberate and intentional . Otherwise he could have produced the medical certificate in support of his claim , as his wife had participated in the inquiry proceedings on 20th and 21st December and requested for adjournment but noMedical Certificate was produced nor the workman appeared on the next date fixed .

The perusal of the inquiry proceedings show that the inquiry officer on entering upon the inquiry proceedings issued notice on 5th October, 1991 informing the employee poceeded against that the inquiry against him shalt begun from 15th October , 1991 and the venue of the inquiry shall be Makilpur Branch of the management Bank. The workman did not attend the inquiry proceedings . He was given repeated notices and the workman in the Claim Petition admitted that he had not attended the inquiry proceedings but gave the explanation that it was due to his ill health that he could not attend to the inquiry proceedings . He has failed to placed on record any evidence to show that he was really ill on the days the inquiry proceedings were fixed . It was in these circumstances that the inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry from 28th Nov. , 1991 . The record of the proceedings further show that though theworkman had received the charge sheet as admitted by him in para No. 2 of the Claim Petition on 19th July , 1991 , but he nowhere claimed that he had filed the reply to the charge sheet . The workman nowhere alleged that he was not provided with the copy of the inquiry report and the proceeding and only stated that he was not allowed to engage a co - worker to defend him . On record 1 do not find any evidence to show that the workman had participated in the inquiry and requested for permission to engage a co- worker in his defence . There is also no request from his side, in writing for permission to engage a co - worker and it seems the claim denial of right to the workman to engage a co- worker , to assist him in the proceedings , is an after thought .

They further claimed that the notices were issued to the workman for the dates fixed for inquiry and the same were once acknowledged by the workman, but still he did not participate in the inquiry not even once . They further claimed that the dates of the personal hearings be changed on the request of the workman , but he did not honour his own commitment and it was in those circumstances that the Disciplinary Authority had passed the orders in his

There is no specific allegation of the workman as to how the inquiry conducted by the Management was unfair and improper. It is clear from the record that the Management made all efforts to serve the workman and infect served him by notices under R/C and this fact is also not denied by workman that is why on two of the dates his wife appeared before the inquiry officer and requested for 49 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/4/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी deferring the proceedings . The Inquiry Officer allowed the request and adjourned the proceedings for a day, but the workman even then did not appear on the fixed date , leaving no option to the inquiry officer but to proceed with the proceedings . Therefore , he conducted the inquiry as Ex-parte.

New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006

S.O. 30. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Chandigarh No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.

[No.L- 12012/4/2003 - IR (B - II)] The workman admitted that he had appeared before the appellate authority in person but according to him the appellate authority did not pass a speaking order in his appeal . The copy of the order of the appellate authority is onrecord . It comprises of four pages and a bear perusal of it shows that the Appellate Authority considered every aspect of case and applied his mind. It was thereafter he did not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. I fail to understand what more speaking order the workman expected in the matter.

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 75/2003

Sh Jagjit Singh C/o Sh . R.P. Rana, House No. 2360, Sector 38 -C, Chandigarh .

..Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Amritsar (Pb .)

..Respondent

APPEARANCES

: Sh. R.P. Rana & B.S. Jaswal

For the workmen

Advocates .

Forthe management : Sh. J.S. Sathi .

After going through whole of the record of the proceedings. I am satisfied that the Management had conducted a fair and proper inquiry in the case , although the workman did not participate in it even when the Management had made every effort to associate the workman in the inquiry proceedings . The erratic conduct of the workman suggested that he intentionally did not participate in the inquiry though at later stage , after knowing the mind of the Disciplinary Authority he went for an appeal but since he had nothing in his possession to disclose the case of the Management, therefore , he could not change the decision tentatively taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The workman failed to show.by any evidence that the conduct that the punishment awarded to him was disproportionate to the misconduct route against him. This Tribunal does not sit appeal over the orders of Disciplinary and Appellate Authority under the statutory standing orders of the Management . However, from the proceedings I have not noticed any action of the Management to show that the inquiry conducted against the workman was unfair or that the punishment awarded to him was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the workman .

Passed on 30-10-2006

AWARD

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 12012/4/2003- IR (B - II) dt. 29-04-2003 has referred the following dispute to his Tribunal for adjudication:

In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the order of the Management imposing the punishment of dismissal from service upon the workman Kehar Chand was just and legal , therefore the workman is not entitled to any relief. 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 , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Jagjit Singh S/o Sh. Atma Singh Ex-Peon (Daily Wagé basis) w.e.f. 1-2-2002 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation , is' legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

2. Central Govt . alongwith the above industrial dispute No. 75/2003 Jagjit Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank also sent eleven other industrial disputes between the workman and against the management of Punjab & Sind Bank details of all are given below.

का.आ. 30.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 चड़ीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/2003 ) को

3986GI /06-7 50

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

Sr. ID Name of workman Notification No. & Date No.

1. 75/03 Jagjit Singh

L-12012/4/2003 - IR(B - II) 29/4/2003

2. 77/03 Ravi Kumar

L- 12012/201 /2002 - IR(B - II) 16/4/2003

3. 79/03 Shamsher Singh L- 12012/200/2002 - IR (B - II) 22/4/2003

4. 81/03 Palwinder Singh L- 12012/ 6/ 2003 - IR (B - II ) 2/5/2003

5. 83/03 Amarjit Singh L- 12012/8/2003 - IR(B - II) 2/5/2003

6. 85/03 Lakhbir Singh L-12012/10/2003- IR-(B - II) 2/5/2003

7. 117/03 Baljit Singh L-12012/50/2003 - IR(B - II) 19/5/2003

8. 127/03 Ram Abhilekh L-12012/44/2003 - IR(B - II) 13/6/2003

9. 165/03 Dev Raj Sharma L- 12012/79/2003/IR(B - II) 4/9/2003

10. 173/03 Ajay Kumar L-12012/53/2003 - IR(B - II) 11/9/2003

11. 163/03 Raj Kumar

L-12012/55/2003 - IR-II (B.II) 11/9/2003

12. 167/03 Satnam Singh L-12012/54/2003 - IR- (B - II) 15/9/2003

3. Out of above 12 industrial disputes in three industrial disputes Ajay Kumar , Raj Kumar and Satnam Singh, Shri B.S. Jaswal is advocate and contesting for them. In remaining nine industrial disputes from Serial No. 1 to 9 Shri R.P. Rana advocate is appearing for them . In all 12 disputes advocate of the management bank is Shri J. S. Sathi Advocate .

4. Shri B.S. Jaswal and Shri R.P. Rana Advocates advanced detailed final arguments in all the above 12 cases and law referred only by Shri R.P. Rana and that law is also adopted by Shri B. S. Jaswal in the three cases contested byhim onbehalf of the workmen . Shri R. P. Rana advocate for the workmen in nine cases also filed list each workmen regarding working days referred above against each workmen as per salary vouchers in respect of Jagjit Singh and 8 others and submitted that in all above nine workman from Serial No. 1 to 9 , all the workmen have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to their termination . Similarly Sh. B. S. Jaswal advocate in cases from Serial No. 10 to 12 he also submitted that all the three workmen Ajay Kumar , Raj Kumar and Satnam Singh worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to their termination .

5. Learned advocates Sh . B. S. Jaswal and R. P. Rana for all the workmen and Sh . J. S. Sathi for the bank submitted that facts and law in all the above 12 cases are similar and

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] these above 12 cases can be decided by a single award in Jagjit Singh Vs. Pb . & Sind Bank and made applicable in all other 11 cases .

6. Learned counsel for the workman Sh . R.P.Rana and B.S. Jaswal submitted that workmen appointed in different branches and on different dates, not disputedby the bank, of the management bank and their services were terminated on 1-2-2002 as mentioned in the term ofreference . They were not issued any termination letter and without giving one month notice or without payment of any salary in lieu of notice and without paying retrenchment compensation their services were terminated which is violation of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act despite the fact that workmenhad completed more than 240 days ofservice in a calendar year preceding to their termination and not only this the workmen had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year . The management bank has als violatedthe provisions of Sections 25 G and H as appointed fresh persons and even detained persons junior to the workmen in service . It is also submitted that there is zero strength of the peon in 43 branches falling in the zonal office, Amritsar and no regular peon has been appointed by the management on regular basis and only workmen and other peons working in the various branches are being shifted/exchanged in these branches by one by another . Workmen also filed a writ petition No. 834/2002 in Hon'ble Pb . & Haryana High Court regarding the regularization of their services and apprehending termination of their services and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14-1-2002 with a direction to the management to decide the representation dated 21-11-2001 within two months . By this the management got annoyed and the services of the above workmen were terminated w.e.f. 1-2-2002 orally without any order. All the workmen were working as temporary peon and was being given initial pay scale plus D.A. It is further submitted that work is available in the bank and the above workmen are entitled tobe appointed against regular vacancy being terminated illegally in violation of provisions of the I.D. Act .

7. Learned counsel for the workman Shri B.S. Jaswal and R. P. Rana further submitted that to prove their cases in each case workman examined himself and to disprove the case of the workmen , management examined MW1 Sukhdev Singh the only witness in all the cases . The workman proved by his evidence that he worked for more than 240 days and that he was appointed as peon and his services were terminated on 1-2-2002 by the branch manager without giving one month notice or without payment of compensation in lieu of notice and violated the provisions of Section 25 of the I.D. Act, 1947. They requests for regularization of their services and reinstatement with full back wages . By proving documents during cross- examination of MW1 , it is proved by payment vouchers that in 12 calendar months preceding to the date of termination and on calculation of working days all have completed more than 240 days and there is no compliance ofthe provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act in particular . Workman also relied and referred 2006( 1 ) RSJ 508 Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Kumar , 2006(1) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

RSJ 80 R.M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant Executive Engineer, 1985 SupremeCourt Cases ( L & S) 975 H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and others , 2006 ( 1 ) RSJ 312 , Improvement Trust Amritsar Vs. The Presiding Officer and another , 2002(4) RSJ 774 Nagappa Hanumanthappa Lamani Vs. Management of Sericulture Department 2006(2) RSJ 314 Director Health and Family Welfare , Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh and another .

8. Learned Counsel for the workmen also submitted that the above referred judgments and evidence on record and documents proved that the workmen were appointed aspeon andwithout any notice or compensation in lieu of notice, their services were terminated on 1-2-2002 . It is also submitted that workman also proved by management oral evidence that the worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to their termination and also corroborated by the documents of management i.e. payment vouchers and as admitted by the only witness of the management that no notice or compensation was given which is clearly a violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act . The MW has also replied that he cannot say whether workmancompleted240 days and workman was also paid waged by the bank, hence workmen are entitled for reinstatement and full back wages from the date of their termination till their reinstatement. Accordingly reference maybe decided in their favour.

9. On the other hand , learned counsel for the management Shri J.S. Sathi submitted that though the management denied workmen having completed 240days in a calendar year but as per documents i.e. payment vouchers filed on record the court may calculate whether theworkmen completed 240 days in a calendar year or not . Asregard issue of termination notice or pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation, MW1 Sukhdev Singh admitted in all cases that no notice was given to the workman at the time of their termination and also no retrenchment compensation was given by the bank. The workmen were appointed unauthorizedly by incompetent personwithout following the due procedure of appointment as laid down in statutory rules and directions . The workmen have no right for reinstatement as their appointment was illegal .Healso referred to the statements ofall the workmen who admitted in their cross - examination that they have not given any application for engagement/appointment in the bank. There was no advertisement by the bank for the post.No appointment letter was given . No interview took placeat the time of appointment. No termination orderwas givenby the bank . The manager has engaged them for the work . He submitted that manager of the bank has no authority to appoint any body as class IV employee. It is only the Zonal Manager who can appoint and is not disputedby the workman . The contention of workmen is only that as they have completed 240 days and it is in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act as no notice or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to the workmen . But these provisions are not attracted in this case as their appointment was illegal .

51.

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

10.Management advocate Shri Sathi submittedthat there is no vacancy existed at present to appoint any person tothepost ofpeon and it is very clearly submitted in written statement . While summing up his arguments he submitted that workmen were engaged in different branches where there was work and they more working in different branches without transfer on new appointment , a workman cannot be counted in one period . He also submitted that workmen have no right of reinstatement and the management was not required to give one month notice , compensation or pay in lieu of notice as the engagement of the workman, was bad in law and in one way it is back door entry.

11. While replying to the arguments of the learned counsel for the workmen, he submitted that judgments referred by the learned counsel for the workman are not applicable at present in view of the latest law Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka and others applies . He also referred to the other judgments also and submitted that as in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1997 Lab I.С. 2075 in Himanshu Kumar Vidayarthi case and 1997( 1 ) Excise Supdt.Malikapatnam AP Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/ establishment to intimate the employment exchange and employment exchange to sponsor the names of the candidates to the requisitioning departments for selection strictly according to the seniority and reservation as per requisition and in addition the appropriate department or undertaking or establishment, should call for the namesby publication in the newspapers having wider circulation and also display on their office notice boards or announce on radio television and employment news bulletines and then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. Ifthisprocedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved and equality of opportunity in the matter of employment wouldbe available to all eligible candidates . He also referred to 2003 (3 ) SCT 559 General Manager, Haryana Roadways Vs. Rudhan Singh wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as regard the back wages , employer should not beburdened with back wages for the period the workınan did not render any service for no fault of the employer . While summing up his arguments he also submitted that our ownPunjab & Haryana High Court in 1998 (4) SLR 15 has held that where a workman is the beneficiary of the fraudulent system of employment or if it finds that he is a back door appointee , the prayer for reinstatement may be refused even though the termination of the services of such an employee may have been brought about without compliance of the provisions contained in Section 25F or 25G because the initial appointment of the petitioner was in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution and relief of reinstatement was rightly denied.

12. While summing up his arguments learned counsel forthe management Shri J.S. Sathi submitted that in view ofthe law referred as workmen are beneficiary ofback door entry and lawful procedure was not adopted, it is proved that all workmen also admitted on oath in the court in cross- examination that they have not given any application for 52

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16, 1928

engagement/appointment in the bank. There was no advertisement by the bank for the post. No appointment letter was given . No interview took place at the time of appointment . No termination order was given by the bank. The manager has engaged them for the work . He submitted that manager of the bank has no authority to appoint any body as class IV employee . It is only the Zonal Manager who can appoint and is not disputed by the workman and as their appointment is back door entry against the statutory rules and no vacancy existed at present . It is also worth mentioning that Govt . has banned recruitment . The request ofworkmen to reinstate them and pay the full back wages and regularize them is not tenable in Law . Workmen canneither be reinstated as there is no vacancy nor can be regularized in view of latest law of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case . The workmen failed to prove the above reference and that management has rightly terminated their services , therefore , reference may be answered in favour of the management .

13. In view of the above submissions and my perusal of the oral evidence and documents and law referred by both the parties , I have found that submissions of the workmen are that they have proved working of more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination and no notice or notice pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to the workmen and it is a clear cut violation of provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and termination order is void ab- initio in such circumstances and this situation is not denied by the management. Management's contentions are that as in view of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka and in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case and a judgment of our own Punjab and Haryana High Court ( supra) that in case the statutory procedure is not adopted in appointments , provisions of I.D. Act is not attracted . I have found that workmen have completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to their date of termination and that no notice of termination or pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to them and it is a clear violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act , 1947 and it is the only plea pressed by all the workmen in their cases . I have also found that in view of the above and relying on the law referred by the workmen , some workmen have also claimed regularization, I am ofthe considered view that following the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench, workmen have no case in such situation entitling for regularization and prayer can not be acceded to and further it is beyond the scope of reference . The management also has taken a plea and also proved on oath that appointment of the workman are against the statutory rules and no vacancy exist at present . It is also worth mentioning that Govt . has banned the recruitment and this part of the evidence and plea of the management was not coritroverted or disputed in any manner by the learned advocates of the workmen .

14. Now it is the settled law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments that reinstatement in certain situation is not necessary and in the present cases

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] inview of the submission and evidence of the management as there is no vacancy existed at present, even ifthis Court hold that termination was bad, reinstatement can not be ordered by this tribunal . As regards violation of Section 25F by the management , I am of the considered view that management has also not vehemently disputed it and it is also proved that workmen has put in more than 240 days of service in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination, it is clear that there is also no vacancy in the bank to regularize their services as is claimed by some workmen in the claim statement at present and it can not be allowed.

15. The contention of the management that manager who appointed these workmen was not authorized and the Appointing Authority is the Zonal Manager but at the same time it is not disputed that this practice is prevailed in all the departments including the respdt. Bank and manager used to engage them temporarily on daily wage basis for contingency and other like purposes . In case the workman is engaged, and continued to work more than 240 days and disengaged , whether Section 25F of the I.D. Act comes to his rescue, Yes, he is entitled for compensation in lieu of notice and it is violation of Section 25F, it is incumbent upon the branch manager to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and in my view as submitted by the learned counsel for the management that there is no vacancy , there can not be any reinstatement, regularization, but as regard the reference sent to this court for adjudication is concerned , as the workman have alleged violation of Section 25F , management failed to prove that in view of the above provisions of law , it is not redundant orineffective, failed to prove that termination order is just and legal .

16. Now the next part of the reference sent for adjudication to what relief the workmen are entitled. I also refer and relied on the judgment 2004 ( 1 ) LLJ 566 Radha Raman Samanta Vs. Bank of India (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant monetary compen- sation in the absence of post. In view of my above decision and law referred as there is no vacancy as proved by the management, the workman were appointed without following the due legal statutory process of employment, are not entitled for the relief of reinstatement and back wages . I am of the considered view that in this peculiar situation when reinstatement is not possible , workmen should be compensated monetarily. In view of the above , I order that workman should be paid monetary compensation ofRs . 40000 in each case in lieu of reinstatement and back wages within three months from the date of publication of the award when it become enforceable failing which workman shall be entitled for interest @ 15 % per annum from the date of publication of the award. Central Govt .be informed . File be consigned to record. A copy of this award be also placed in other eleven I. Ds .

Chandigarh

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2006

का. आ. 31.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 14/2006- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th December , 2006 S.Q. 31. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 7-12-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 14/2006- IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW.

Present:

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 13/2006.

Ref. No. L- 12012/ 14/2006 - IR(B - II) Dt. 29-6-2006

BETWEEN

Shri Ramesh Chandra Gram & PostGhiyar Mohliya Hardoi (U.P. )

And

The Regional Manager Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, 156, Civil Line Bareilly (U.P. )

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referred the following dispute, No. L- 12012/ 14/2006- IR(B -II ) dated 29-6-2006 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow:

"Whether the action of the management of PunjabNational Bank, Regional Office, Bareilly in imposing the Punishment of Removal from service of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Peon vide Order dt. 28-2-2004 is legal and justified ? Ifnot towhat reliefthe concerned workman is entitled ?" The Government of India, Ministry of Labour endorsed the copy of Order to the Ramesh Chandra and Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank as well with the notethat the parties raising the dispute shall file a statement ofclaim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance and'witnesses with the Tribunal within 15 days of the receipt of this Order of reference and also forward a copy ofsaid statement to each one of the opposite party involved in this dispute under rule 10(0) of the I. D. Act (Central) 1957.

TheOrderofreference was received in the office of PresidingOfficer, CGIT -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow on 10-7-2006. But the worker did not file any statement of claim in the stipulated period. Worker Shri Ramesh Chandra on25-8-2006 requested for adjournment which was allowed and 15-9-2006 was fixed for filing statement of claim with thedocuments and list of witnesses. Worker did not file in the extended period therefore in the interest of justice 18-9-2006 was fixed for hearing. None appeared on thedate fixedtherefore this Court Ordered the notices by registered post be issued to the parties fixing 18-10-2006 for filing statement ofclaim list of witnesses in the Court alongwith the postal receipt of sending the aforesaid paper to the opposite party. Court also fixed 30-10-2006 for filing written statement, documents etc , and also fixed 15-11-2006 for filing rejoinder 22-11-2006 was fixed for evidence . According the notices were sent to the parties but none turned up on the dates mentioned above .

Itwas theduty of the worker to prove that his removal order was illegal and unjustified but he has fail to do so. With the result, the issue is answered against the workman and I also come to the conclusion that worker is not entitled toanyrelief.

LUCKNOW

27-11-2006

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 7 दिसम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 32.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 / 110/2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 54

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

New Delhi , the 7th December, 2006 S.O. 32. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2002) 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 Syndicate Bank, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 07-12-2006.

[No. L- 12011/ 110/2002- IR (B - II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 30th November , 2006

PRESENT:

SHRIA. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 49/2002

I PARTY

II PARTY

The General Manager (P) , Syndicate Bank, HeadOffice, Udupi Distt. MANIPAL-576119 The General Secretary , Syndicate Bank Staff Union 84, JC Road , BANGALORE-560002

APPEARANCES

IstParty

: Shri B. D. Kuttappa, Advocate :

2nd Party

Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya , Advocate

AWARD

1. The CentralGovernment by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L- 12011 / 110/2002 - IR (B- II) dated 23rd August , 2002for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified by dismissing Shri M. Shiva Mahadeva, Attender from services w.e.f. 30-11-2000 ? If not, whatrelief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

2. A charge sheet dated 7-4-2000 came to be issued to the first party workman in the following terms :

CHARGESHEET

Thatyou have been working as Attender at BWSSB Branch , Bangalore since 3-1-1994 and while functioning in your position as such :

(1) During July/August 1998 you introduced to the branch Shri K. R. Sridhar , said to be Proprietor of M/ s . Ashwini Industries to avail credit facilities aggregating to Rs . 24.85 lakhs .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] (2) You issued two cheques for amounts aggregating to Rs . 6,100 which were dishonoured for want of funds in your SB account No. 58263 .

(3) You fraudulently issued your Income/Salary Certificate in Form No.16 , Annexure - III to Hongkong Bank , Dickenson Road, Bangaloreto obtain a credit card for self.

Following circumstances appear on record in respect

of the above transactions :

1. In the matter of introduction of Shri K.R. Sridhar .

That M/ s . Ashwini Industries , said to be a proprietorship concern of one Mr. K. R. Sridhar , No. 68, II stage, Peenya, Bangalore -58 , reportedly engaged in manufacture of papads , roasted vermicelli was introduced to the branch by you . In fact the said firm was a partnership firm and was enjoying huge credit facility/overdue liability with State Bank & City Bank. Without ascertaining the antecedents /knowing the property you introduced him to BWSSB branch, Bangalore and requested Shri Sriram Chinchalkar , the then Chief Manager for sanction of credit facility to Shri K. R. Sridhar in the name of said proprietorship concern .

That on 8-9-1998 the branch was extended to the party credit facilities vide OSL/ SSI 62/98 for Rs . 9.85 lakhs and SOD 1736 for Rs . 15 lakhs .

Atpresent an amount of Rs . 26.55 lakhs is struck to books of the branch proving difficult of recovery .

It is alleged that you have received an illegal gratification of Rs . 1 lakh from Shri K. R. Sridhar for introducing him to the branch and recommending for sanction of the credit facility tothe firm.

That now it is revealed that the unit never functioned/ presently closed , that before approaching our bank, the borrower has availed credit facility aggregating to Rs . 8 lakhs from KSFC , Peenya branch during October, 1996 , vehicle loans for Rs . 5.09 lakhs from Citi Bank during March 1997 and term loan/cash credit facility aggregating to Rs . 39.50 lakhs from SBI Peenya during 1997-98 and cheated the said banks , that he has cheated our bank also by suppressing the above facts .

You have been maintaining a SB Account No. 58263 with the branch to which your salary is being credited. It is reported that during the material period you were having huge outside . Liability besides liabilities aggregating to about Rs.1.60 lakhs under EPF loan , vehicle loan, DL andHousing loan, that your take home payduring [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

thematerial period was about Rs . 1300 per month. However, you made following cash remittances to your said SB account .

Rs. 5000/-on 20-5-98 Rs.5000 on 24-6-1998

Rs . 5000/-on23-7-1998 Rs.5000 on 8-9-1998

Your above acts constitute gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause No. 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement. You are therefore, charged with commission of Gross Misconduct of " doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank" vide clause No.19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement .

Rs.15000/-on 15-9-1998 Rs . 1000 on 8-10-1998

3. In the matter of availing credit card facility with Hongkongbank:

Rs. 2000/-on 24-11-1998 Rs . 1110 on 3-1-1999

Following irregularities are observed on yourpart.

(a) Without knowing the party/ascertaining his antecedents , you introduced him to the branch.

(b) You introduced a party whose transactions with other banks/ financial institutions were highly irregular.

(c) You obtained illegal gratification from the party and caused the borrower to derive undue pecuniary benefit at the cost of the bank.

That you submitted an application dated 27-1-1999 to Hongkong Bank, Manipal Centre, DickensonRoad, Bangalore - 42, falsely declaring that you were working as a Clerk at BWSSB branch, Bangalore and requested them for issue of a credit card. Also you had enclosed to the said application your annual salary certificate for the period 1-4-1997 to 31-3-1998 purported tohave been issuedby our BWSSB branch declaring that your annual gross salary was Rs.72,326/- . That based on the said information Honkong Bank issued to you on 16.2.1999 a credit card bearing No. 5422 0710 0496 4193 valid up to February 2000, with credit limit of Rs . 15,000/- of which 40% can be withdrawn as cash .

(d) You failed to safeguard bank's interest and facilitated the borrower to play fraud on the bank.

It is revealed that the said certificate was not issued by our BWSSB branch that you falsely declared that you were a Clerk and also fraudulently submitted the above certificate and derived undue pecuniary benefit for self.

Your above acts constitute gross misconduct within the meaning of clause No. 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement .

The above acts on your part constitute gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause No. 19.5 ofBipartite Settlement . Your are therefore , charged with the commission of gross misconducts of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank vide clause No. 19.5(j ) and taking a bribe or illegal gratification from a customer of the bank vide clause No. 19.5(k) of theBipartite Settlement.

(2) In the matter of dishonour of cheques issued by you;

You are therefore, charged with the commission ofgross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank vide Clause No.19.5(j) of theBipartite Settlement.

You are advised to submit your written statement ofdefence, if any , within fifteen days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet ." You have issued following cheques favouring third parties which were dishonoured for want of funds in your SB Account No. 58263 at BWSSB branch:

S. No

Cheque No. & date

Name of the payee

Amount (Rs.)

Returned unpaid on

5000

22-8-1998

Basavaraj Mathod

1. 680575/ 20-8-1998

1100

2-7-1999

3. There being no reply to the charge sheet by the first party, a Domestic Enquiry was ordered against him and on the basis of the enquiry report holding him guilty ofthe charges leveled in the above said charge sheet, the DisciplinaryAuthority sent the enquiry report to the first party giving him opportunity of personal hearing and thereupon, proposed the punishment of dismissal and confirmed the same once again affording opportunity of personal hearing to the first party.

2. 842454/ 28-6-1999

Honkong Bank

You did not maintain sufficient balance in your SB account to meet the above cheques , thereby you contravened the guidelines issued vide HO Cir . No. 90/94/BC.

4. The first party workman through the first party union, represented by the General Secretary State Bank StaffUnion, Bangalore in his claim statement before this tribunal challenged the enquiry proceedings as opposed tothe principles ofnatural justice , findings of the enquiry [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007 /PAUSA 16, 1928

officer as perverse and not based on the material available on record and the order of dismissal passed against him as unjust , illegal and disproportionate to the alleged charges of misconduct leveled against him.

a customer approaching bank for the purpose of loan to the authority competent sanctioning the loan or to initiate the process of sanctioning the loan , cannot be held responsible if loan was sanctioned by the competent authority and thereupon the customer concerned became adefaulter . As far as the later portion of the charge is concerned learned counsel submitted that except the alleged statement of said Shri Sridhar said to have been made before the Regional Manager viz . MW3 that he paid a sum of Rs . 1 lakh to the first party workman as a bribe so as to get the loan from the bank, there is absolutely no evidence reliable brought on record to speak to the said fact and to prove the said charge .

5. The management by its counter statement however, denied the allegations of the first party workman made in the claim statement with regard to the enquiry proceedings , findings of the enquiry officer and so also the legality of the dismissal order passed against him. The management contended that proceeding of enquiry were conducted in tune with the principles of natural justice giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the first party workman to participate in the proceedings taking the help of defence representative . It contended that findings of the enquiry officer are well based on oral and documentany evidence and cannot be termed as perverse by any stretch of imagination. It contended that keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party, the dismissal order passed against him was quite just, legal and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committedbyhim.

6. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties with regard to the validity , fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , this tribunal on 27-5-2004 framed the following preliminary issue :

"Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the Second Party is fair and proper?"

7. During the course of trial , the management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and got marked documents at Ex . M1 to M4 including the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report . The first party as a rebuttal filed his affidavit by way of examination chief without getting marked any document .

9. Now, coming to the Second Charge, learned counsel submitted that the first party caused no financial loss to the bank when the two cheques issued by him to 3rd parties were rendered and returned for want of funds . With regard to the 3rd Charge, learned counsel submitted that the income certificate submitted by the first party through the agent was a genuine certificate issued by the competent authority viz . the then manager and that the application filed by him seeking the credit card showing his designation as Clerk instead of a sub- staff was filled by the Agent of the said bank himself and therefore , the fact that his designation was shown as Clerk instead of sub-staff is not with an intention to misrepresent or defraud either the management bank or the Hong Kong Bank in getting the Card . Therefore , learned counsel submitted all the charges have not been substantiated by oral and documentary evidence produced during the course of the enquiry as the evidence brought on record was an hearsay evidence and the most competent and important witness namely, said Shri Sridhar , to speak to the first charge was not produced and therefore , the enquiry officer committed gross error in not appreciating the evidence brought on record in its proper perspective and in the result his findings are perverse to be interfered at the hands of this tribunal .

10. Learned counsel or the management Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya on the other hand with equal vehemence argued that the fact that the first party introduced said Sridhar to the then Manager for the credit facility since has been admitted by the first party himself, it goes without saying that he misled the then competent authority sanctioning the loan in introducing the said customer without ascertaining his antecedents and without himself knowing as to whether the said customer's financial condition was sound enough to raise the loan .

11. Coming to the Second Portion of the charge, learned counsel submitted that the said Sridhar when was interrogated by MW4 , the then manager of the Management branch gave his written statement on 1-4-1999 to the effect that he had made the payment of Rs . 1 lakh to the first party in getting the loan sanctioned from the bank . He submitted that non examination of said 8. After having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties on the above said issue , this tribunal by order dated 17-5-2006 recorded a finding to the effect that the enquiry held against the first party by the second party is fair and proper . Thereupon , the matter came to be posted for arguments on merits i.e. on the alleged perversity of the enquiry findings and the quantum of the punishment . The learned counsel for the first party Shri B. D. Kuttappa , while taking the court through the oral and documentary evidence brought on record before the enquiry officer and the findings of the enquiry officer, vehemently , argued that the 1st charge against the first party can be divided into two portions i.e. the allegation that the first party introduced one Mr. Sridhar to the then Manager fascilating him for credit facility and the Second Portion of the charge is to the effect that the first party introduced the said customer, Shri Sridhar to the Incharge, Advances Department , the then manager against a consideration ofRs . 1 lakh he received from the customer . He argued that the mere fact that the first party introduced 57 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16, 1928

on the bank knowingly or unknowingly. I therefore , place on record that the Gross Misconducts of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank and taking bribe or illegal gratification from a customer of the bank framed against the CSE are proved' conclusively" .

Sridhar is not a circumstance fatal to the case of the management as the above said statement of Shri Sridhar marked at Ex . MEX.15 during the course of enquiry remains to be challenged by the first party. With regard to the other two charges , learned counsel submitted that there was ample evidence by way of oral testimony of MW1 to MW4 that undisputedly, the first party issued two cheques to the 3rd parties which could not be honoured when tendered by them for want of funds in the accounts of the first party . He submittedthat the 3rd charge against the first party that he obtained the credit card from Hong Kong Bank showing his designation as a Clerk though was working as a sub- staff again has been proved in the very admissions of the first party that the application submitted by him to the said bank seeking the credit card did mention his designation as Clerk and not as a Sub - staff.

12. After having gone through the proceedings of the enquiry including the oral testimony of MW1 to 4 and the voluminous documentary evidence produced by the management and the findings of the enquiry officer, I am of the considered opinion that the 1st Charge levelled against the first party consisting of allegation that he introduced said customer Shri Sridhar to the then competent authority Incharge , Advances Department is not a misconduct even we assume that he did introduce the said customer to the authority concerned . As far second allegation is concerned that he introduced the said customer to the authority concerned fascilating him to get credit facility as against the consideration of Rs.1 lakh has not been established by the management by sufficient and legal evidence . The other two charges against the first party in my opinion have been substantiated in the light of the oral and documentary evidence produced before the enquiry officer and the very admissions of first party.

13. Coming to the first charge, the enquiry officer after having analysed the oral and documentary evidence particularly, the alleged statement of said Sridhar at Ex . MEX. 15 at Para 31 of page 19 of the enquiry report observed as under :

14. After having gone through the statements ofMW 1 to 4 and so also the defence statement of the first party I must say that the first part of the observation made by the enquiry officer in the aforesaid Para is not supported by the evidence on record. The fact that the first party introduced Shri Sridhar to MW3 , the then Assistant Manager is not disputed by the first party himself. However , his defence is to the effect that he just introduced said Sridhar to MW3 saying that he wanted credit facility and said nothing about his credibility, trustworthiness or that he was a sound party etc. This defence of the first party gets support from the very statement of MW3 made in his examination chief, wherein he stated that the first party brought the party ( Sridhar) to the branch and introduced to him. He ( Sridhar ) approached the bank for credit facility so he (MW3) took him to Shri Chinchalkar, Chief Manager . He never stated that the first party introduced said Shri Sridhar knowing fully well his antecedents or that he was knowing him quite well otherwise . Therefore , the observation made by the enquiry officer saying that the first party introduced the said customer to the bank for a credit facility without knowing him well and his antecedents or that he had transactions with other banks which werehighly irregular is not supported by the evidence on record . Even assuming for a moment that the first party introduced the said customer to MW3 without knowing him well and his antecedents , it cannot be said that the first party in doing so had any ulterior motive to defraud the bank authority and that his introduction as such authorized MW3 or the authority competent to sanction the loan without observing the required formalities . Responsibility of ascertaining the antecedents and the sound status of the party was on the authorities concerned who were to process the loan application filed by the party and then to sanction the loan. They just cannot sanction the loan or cannot be justified to say that they have sanctioned the loan only because the first party as a sub - staff has introduced the said customer to the then Assistant Branch Manager namely, MW3 .

" Summing up above analysis of evidence , I would like to say that Shri Sridhar , Proprietor of M/ s . Ashwini Industries was introduced to the bank by the CSE for a credit facility, that the CSE introduced the party without knowing him well and his antecedents , that the party introduced by the CSE had transactions with other banks/ financial institutions which were highly irregular and that the CSE obtained illegal gratification from the party for introducing him to the bank and thus the CSE as well as the party derived undue pecuniary advantage at the cost of the bank. By such act the CSE failed to safeguard the bank's interest and facilitated the borrower to play a fraud

15. Now , coming to the other part of the charge, that the first party obtained illegal gratification from the said customer, as argued for the first party , except the above said alleged statement of Shri Sridhar at Ex . MEX.15 , there is no evidence brought on record worth credence to substantiate the said charge against the first party . The oral testimony of MW2 to 4, to the effect that MW4 interrogated Shri Sridhar and during the course of 3986 G1/068 58

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

interrogation he gave the said statement mentioning the fact that he paid a sum of Rs . 1 lakh to the first party as a bribe is not worth reliable . The above said oral testimony of management witnesses certainly was an hearsay evidence as the author of the said statement itself was not produced before the enquiry officer to speak to the said statement . In fact, as it has come on record MEX.15 was not the original complaint of the said Sridhar but said to be an attested copy of the said complaint. That apart, it is interesting to note that the said customer, Shri Sridhar was interrogated by MW4 and not by the Investigation Officer , MW1 . MW1 who is said to have investigated the matter admittedly did not record the statement of said Sridhar for the reasons best known to him. Therefore , it was not very safe for the enquiry officer to have acted upon the oral testimony of MW2 to MW4 and jump to the conclusion that charge of illegal gratification against the first party was proved. Therefore, I must record a finding to the effect that the first charge against the first party fails to be substantiated .

16. Now , coming to the Second Charge , it is not disputed and cannot be disputed by the first party that he had issued two cheques dated 20-8-1998 and 28-6-1999 , one favouring Shri Basvaraj Mathod and the other one favouring Hong Kong Bank respectively for amounts of Rs . 5000/- and Rs . 1100/ - . It is again not disputed by the first party that when those two cheques were tendered for encashment , they have been returned back to the customers concerned "not being honoured for want of funds" . Therefore , the act of the first party in issuing those cheques without maintaining sufficient balance in his account certainly amounts to misconduct as was done in violation of the circular issued by the management bank inthat regard. The defence of the first party that it was for the first time the cheques issued by him were returned for want of funds in his span of 28 years cannot be considered a circumstance mitigating in his favour. Therefore , the above said charge against the first party stands proved.

17. The next charge against the first party that in his application to the agent of Hong Kong Bank seeking the facility of credit card, he designated himself as Clerk though was working as a sub - staff is again very much substantiated in the very admission of the first party himself. His defence that it is the agent who himself filled the application showing his designation as Clerk cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the application must have been filled up by the agent under the instructions of the first party himself . What appears is that he could not have got the facility of credit card if his designation was mentioned as sub- staff and that is the reason for the first party to designate himself as Clerk and not a sub - staff in seeking the facility of the said credit card from the Hong Kong Bank. Therefore, the above said charge is again established by the management . The enquiry officer also has given his sound reasonings while coming to the

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] conclusion that charges No. 2 and 3 have been substantiated by the management . Therefore, in the light of the above, it can be safely concluded that Charge No. 1 has not been proved and whereas, charge No. 2 and 3 stand proved against the first party.

18. Keeping in view of the fact that Charge No. 1 which was serious in mature , since has not been proved, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the first party for Charge No. 3 on its face itself appears to be quite disproportionate and harsh in nature . Therefore , liableto be set aside . Taking into consideration the nature of the misconduct committed as against Charges No. 2 and 3 , it appears to me that ends of justice will be met if the first party is dealt with punishment of withholding of his three annual increments with cumulative effect denying him 50% oftheback wages from the date ofdismissal till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and other consequential benefits . Hence the following Award:

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first party in its service with 50 % of the back wages from the dateofdismissal till the date of reinstatement withholding his three annual increments from the date of dismissal with cumulative effect with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits . No costs .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed byme on 30th November, 2006)

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 33.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 179/1999- आई आर (डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2006 S.O. 33. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 11-12-2006.

[No. L-42012/179/1999- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer 59 भारत का राजपुत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

is covered under the Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act and the establishment is also covered under the Industrial Employment Standing OrdersAct .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI .

I. D. No.13/2000

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Shumbhari,

Thatas pertheModel Standing Order Act under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946 the workman became permanent workman after completion of 90 days of service . In this case, the workman has been performing his work continuously without any break from thedate ofhis employment w.e.f. 10-06-1988 till date and completed more than 10 years of service but the management with a view to exploiting the workman treated as work order which is not permissible under the Vth Schedule ofID Act, 1947 being unfair labour practice.

C/ oGeneral Secretary, CPWD Mazdoor Union, E-26 (Old Qtr . ), RajaBazar, BabaKharak Singh Marg, New Delhi - 110001 .

Versus

That under Item No.7 of the 3rd Schedule under Section 7Aof the ID Act, 1947 the workman has a rightto be classifiedby grades.

TheExecutiveEngineer(Civil) ,

CPWD "U" Division, CGOComplex, Lodhi Road, NewDelhi -110003 .

AWARD

TheMinistryof Labour by its letter No. L-42012/179/ 99/IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 27-01-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

That as perthe judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court inthematter of Surinder Singh and Others Vs. Engineers in Chief, CPWD in its judgment dated 17-01-1986 directed the management to pay the wages to allthe daily rated workers fromtheir respective dates of employment and also hoped that the workers after completion of six months of service wouldbe regularized in the time scale but the management as per the sanction of Director General Works , CPWD No. 38/2/87 -EC.X dated 30-09-1992 have created manyposts in various categories for the purpose ofregularization of daily rated muster roll workers of CPWD. Copy of the same is enclosed and marked as Annexure -A.

"Whether the action of the Executive Engineer , CPWD, "U" Division, New Delhi in not regularizing the services of Shri Shumbhari as Sewerman w.e.f. 16-06-1988 is fair, legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat relief the workman concerned is entitled."

That the management camouflagedly with a viewto denythe status and privileges of permanent workman his serviceswere not regularized which is unfair labour practice as envisaged in Item 10 of the Vth Schedule under Section 2(ra) ofthe IDAct, 1947.

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that Shri Shumbhari was engaged for the work of Sewerman w.e.f. 16-06-1988 andpresently performing his duties in Paryavaran Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 .

That this Hon'ble Tribunal is within its jurisdiction toclassify the workman by grades as provided under Item No.7 in the 3rd Schedule under section 7 A of the ID Act, 1947. That the action of the management of CPWD in not regularizing the services of Shri Shumbhari as Sewerman w.e.f. 16-06-1988 is unfair, illegal and unjustified.

That the management has designated his work order as sweeper but he was performing the duties of sewerman but he was paid only for the work of sweeper and not sewerman as the post of sewerman is of skilled nature and the regular workers in the category of sewerman performing similarduties have been designated as skilled workmen in the pay scale ofRs . 950-1500 revised to Rs . 3200-4500 without increment .

The management has filed written statement. Inthe written statement it has been stated that the claimant/ workman is not a "workman" as per the provision of the ID Act, 1947 and the claimant is a contractor who was given work orders from time to time on contract basis for supply of sweeper for a specific period for an agreed amount on certain terms and conditions as specified in the contract. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the present claim ofthe claimantunder reply is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone .

That the Junior Engineer of CPWD has been supervising the work of Shri Shumbhari and work was allotted by the Inquiry Clerk of the management directly. That the Junior Engineer has been marking attendance of this workman and comouflagedly the management is treating the work as contractor .

That the claimant/workman has no cause of action in his favour and against the management . It is respectfully submitted that the claimant herein was given work order from time to time on contract basis for supply of sweeper for a specific period for an agreed amount on certain terms That thousands of workmen are performing their duties in CPWD for the maintenance of buildings , construction work, roads, bridges etc. and the same work 60

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

denied. It is submitted that the management is paying to the workman herein as per the amount mentioned in the contract/work order . However, it is not denied that the post of sewerman is skilled nature and the regular workers working in the category of sewerman are receiving pay in pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 revised to Rs . 3200-4500 w.e.f. 01- 01-1996.

and conditions as specified in the contract. It is pertinent to mention here that it was clearly mentioned in the contract paper that the contractor or his worker shall have no claim of any nature other than the payment mentioned above . Therefore, the claimant/ contractor subsequently cannot claim himself as a workman working with the answering management on the basis of the contracts/ work orders taken together.Hence, the claimant has no cause of action in his favour and against the answering management and the present claim under reply is liable to be turned down by this Hon'ble Tribunal .

It is submitted that the Junior Engineers are supervising the duty performed by the workman of the management as well as the work executed by the work ordercontractors on day to day maintenance of the building.

Itisstrongly denied that the answering management iscamouflagedly treating the work as contractor . In reply to this para it is submitted that as a matter of fact, it was clearly mentioned in one of the terms/conditions of the contract that daily attendance shall be made in the Register maintained by the Junior Engineer in charge of the work . It is further submitted that the attendance is only meant for marking day to day work executed either by contractor's labour or by contractor himself.

It is submitted that the persons given the work orders on contract basis for supply of sweepers for a specific period on specified amount for execution of work are not covered under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act.

That the claimant has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal by concealing material facts , deliberately and intentionally , regarding his status vis - a - vis the answering management . It is respectfully submitted that the claimant is a contractor who was given work order ( s ) by the answering management from time to time on contract basis for supply of sweeper for a specific period for an agreed amount on certain terms and conditions as specified in the contract. The claimant's allegations that he was engaged for the work of sewerman; and that the management has designated him as work order sweeper but he was performing the duties of sewerman ; he was paid only for the work of sweeper and not sewerman, is contrary to the records . The concealment of the fact (that the claimant/ workman is a contractor whose claim, if any , is confined onlyto the terms and conditions of the contract/ work order) ismade to misguide the Hon'ble Tribunal . The answering management craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to point out the concealment at appropriate stage of the proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal . Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the present claim of the claimant under reply is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone .

It is categorically denied that as per the Model Standing Order Act under the Industrial Employment (Standing Corders ) Act , 1946 the workman became permanent workman after completion of 90 days of service . It is further denied that the workman has been performing his work continuously without any break from the date of his employment w.e.f. 10-06-1988 till date and completed more than 10 years of service but the management with a viewto exploiting the workman treated as work order which is not permissible under the Vth Schedule of ID Act, 1947 being unfair labour practice . In reply to this para it is submitted that the claimant herein was given contracts from time to time on work order basis to supply sweeper on certain terms and conditions on specified amount and the claimant/contractor herein , who executed the terms/ conditions of contract of the work order either through his workman or by himself, does not become a permanent workman after completion of 90 days . There is no provision in the relevant Rules of the management which provides that the work order contractors shall be employed after 90 days . Thesubmissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the same of brevity .

sweeper. It is categorically denied that the workman was engaged as sewerman as has been alleged by the workman herein. In reply to para No. 2 of the claim, it is submitted thatthe workman herein was given work as a contractor on work order for the supply of sweeper and presently he was given the work order as contractor for the supply of per . The said work order is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R- 1 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal . That he was performing the duties of sewerman but he was paid only for the work of sweeper and not sewerman , are wrong, misconceived and therefore , denied. Itisalso categonically denied that the regular workers in the category of sewerman performing similar duties have been designated; as skilled - workman in the pay scale of Rs .950-1500 revised to Rs . 3200-4500 w.e.f. 1-1-1996 . In reply to this para it is submitted that the management has no need to designate a contractor who has taken werk on contract basis on work order for supply of sweeper ca a specified amount. It is further submitted that the workmar. herein is a contractor for supply of sweeper and the allegation that the workman is/was performing the duties of sewerman is baseless /misconceived and vehemently

It is categorically denied that under Item No.7 of the Thied Schedule under Section 7 A of the ID Act, 1947 , the workma.. therein has a right to be classified by grades. In renly to this para, it is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake ofbrevity.

It is submitted that the judgment cited by the workman in the corresponding para of the claim under reply is not applicable in the present case . The answering management craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal toplace on record the relevant judgments in its favour at appropriate stage of the proceedings . So far as the sanction of the DirectorGeneral Works , CPWD No. 38/2/87 - EC.X, dated 30-9-1992 is concerned, it is submitted that the creation of various posts was confined to daily rated muster roll workers of the answering management only and the contractors who execute the work on the basis of work: order /contract as per the terms and conditions of contract, cannot claim anything whatsoever except those as stipulated in the contract itself.

61 statement . The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe 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 determination:

1. Whether the workman is an independent contractor ?

2. Whether there is master and servant relationship between the management and the workman ?

3. Whether the workman is entitled for regularization w.e.f. 16-6-1988 ?

4. Whether the workman is entitled to equal pay for equal work?

5. Relief ifany ?

Issue Nos . 1 & 2

It is categorically denied that the answering management camouflagedly with a view to deny the status and privilege of permanent workman, the services of the workmanherein were not regularized which is unfair labour practice as envisaged in Item No.10 of Vth Schedule under Section2(ra) ofthe ID Act, 1947. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated for the sake ofbrevity.

Itissubmittedthat grades and scales cannot begiven tocontractors executing the work on work order /contract. Itissubmitted that the submisions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake ofbrevity.

It is categorically denied that the action of the answering management in not regularizing the service of Shri Shumbhari as Sewerman w.e.f. 16-06-1988 is unfair, illegal and unjustified. It is respectfully submitted that the workman herein is a contractor on work order /contract to execute the work of supplying sweeper as per the terms and conditions of the contract . The workman herein is simply a contractor as mentioned above and he cannot be treated as a workman by any stretch of imagination and he isnot covered by any rules of the answering management for employment and/or regularization. Therefore, the answering management was right and justified in not regularizing the workman as sewerman . It is respectfully submitted that the allegations of the workman in the corresponding para of the claim under reply are totally false, frivolous, misconceived, baseless, contrary to records as the workman has no legitimate ground of grievance.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reitertated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of thewritten It was submitted from the side of the workman that the management witness has admitted that the workman Shri Shumbhari was initially engaged on 16-6-1988 andhe hasbeenperforming his duties continuously on work order basistillnow. The relevant portion of the admission ofthe managementwitness is reproduced as hereunder:

"It is correct that Shri Sumbhari is also doing the work ofcleaning of WC and opening of drainage pipes of sewer, etc. in our office establishment maintaind by CPWD. It is correct that Shri Sumbhari has been performing the above duty himelf."

"It is correct that the work diaries were maintained bythe Junior Engineer and accordingly Shri Sumbhari has beenperforming his duties. It is also correct that the JE concerned has been supervising the work of Shri Sumbhari and other workers on hand receipt and work charge staff employedon time scale as regular basis . It is correct that in my division more than 100 staffs including JE, AB, Hd. Clerk, Cashier , UDC, LDC , Work charge, muster roll including work orders are performing their duties undermy control. It is correct that the work related to my division is to maintain the building of the Central Government Offices. It iswrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely." The management witness has categorically admitted that the workman worked from 16-8-1988 till date under the supervision and control of the management. So the workman is not an independent contractor.

It has been held in 1997 AIR SCW Page 430 that the industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid contract or it is amere 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 62

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6,2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

contract workers . In (2000) I SCC 126-the Hon'ble Supreme Courthas held that there are multiple pragmatic approach/ factors which should be considered in deciding employer and employee relationship . According to 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 relieved of his liabilities . According to this judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court at least 23 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 of sufficient duration, contract workers shall be considered to be the direct employees of the management and they are entitledto 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 1993. It is for sufficient duration . The management is doing violent injustice to the workman . He has been deprived of the facilities and emoluments of regular employees since 1988 . In Pollock Law of Torts a servant and an independent contractor has been defined as under :-

Thedistinction between a servant and a independent contractorhas 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 of Torts , (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 moment maydirect the means also, or, as it has been put, retains the power of 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 of the person for whom he does it, andmayuse 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 hasbeen 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. Aservant is a person engaged to obey his employer's orders from time to time ; an independent contractor

[PART II-SEC. 3( ії) ] isaperson engaged to do certain work, but to exercise hisowndiscretion as to the mode and time of doing it-he is bound by his contract, but not by his employer's orders ."

The management has retained the power of controlling the work so the workman is the employee ofthe 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 ofworkers 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 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 employment, we discern the naked truth, though drapedindifferent perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management, not the immediate contractor. Myriaddevices, half hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type ofindustry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted towhen 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 lawhas 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 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 therewill be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workmen. Butwhere a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a 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 questionmig IOC arise whether the contract is amere camouflage as inHussainabhai Calicut's case (supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation's case (supra) etc.; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workmen will be in fact an employee ofthe principal 63

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workmen will be a contract labourer. "

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 findings whether contract is sham and bogus .

In the instant case the workman has not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor but he has been hired by the contractor for the work of the respondents . So in the instant case there is contract of service betweenthe principal employer and the workman.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the CLRA 37 of 1970 is a act to further social welfare and general interest of the community. The contract labour is to be abolished whenever the contract is found sham and notgenuine. In the instant case the contractor is only name giver. Theworkman are under the control and supervision ofthe management. There is no proofthat money is paidto the contractor and the contractor pays to the workman. Themanagement makes payment of wages Versus workmen directly.

Ithas been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 1 -Workman ARI Ltd. to the ARI Ltd. , Bhaw Nagar that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the reality behind the facade of paper arrangement of contract labour system so according to the judgement of the Apex Court the Tribunal can examine the genuineness or otherwise of the contract labour. I find no force in the arguments of the management.

The Constitution Bench Judgement 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 ofprohibition notification under section 10(1 ) of theCLRA Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought IOC before it byany 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 of having 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 ."

Itwas further submitted that the management is an instrumentality of the Central Government . They are chargedwith theduties of discharging their functions ina fair and just manner . They are expected to act justly and fairly and not arbitarily or capricatiously. The management has not been acting fairly impartially and reasonably.Article 39(d) of the Constitution directs the management to give employment to its citizen.

It has been held in this case that whether there is prohibition of contract labour or otherwise the industrial adjudicator 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. Sewerman is a perennial nature of job. The work of sewerman is of existing, continuous and perennial in nature for such work contract workers cannot be employed.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR2001 SC 3527 has held that the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contract has been interposed either on theground 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 thereunder . If the contract is not genuine the alleged contract labour should betreatedas the employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment . In the instant case itisprovenfact that the workman works under the control andsupervision of the management. He cannot himself be acontractor.

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 establishment. In the present case the work is of the establishment 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 is the duty of State to give employment to citizen and not ofthe contrators . Contractors cannot supply labour to any establishinent .

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 beenheld in 1999 Lab IC 825 that the Tribunal cangive

Ithas been held in AIR 1953 SC 404that if a master employs a servant and authorize him to employ a'number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficieny for cash consideration, the employees thus appointed by the servant will be equally with the employer servant of the masters . In the instant case there is no servant to employ a number of persons . The workman himselfworks for the management.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

It become quite obvious from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above that the contract workman cannot be appointed for perennial and regular nature of work in breach of Section 10( 1 ) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. It also becomes obvious that the workman is not a contractor man . He was engaged by the management and has worked for 19 years on work order basis . He has become an employee of the management by operation of law . Contract is sham and ruse. He has become an employee of the management. There is master and servant relationship between the workman and the management . The workman is not an independent contractor. These issues are decided accordingly .

IssueNo.3

It was submitted that the workman is not a regular workman. It is prepogative of the Government to create and abolish posts . It is not disputed that the workman has beenworking continuously from 16-6-1988 till date . He has worked for 19 years as casual labour but he has not been conferred the status of a regular employee .

My attention was drawn 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 thereunder . 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 unequals are not treated equals . Thus , any public employment has to be in terms of the Constitutional scheme .

B. A sovereign Government , considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages . Going by a law newly enacted, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundread days in a 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 oftime, are tobe filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman is contractor and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to regularize the workman. Only the Central Government can abolish contract labour and direct for regularization of the contrator's men. There

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] isnomerit in the argument of the management. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of cases has decided that it is the duty of industrial ajudicator to examine and give findings whether contract labour a sham and a mere camouflage to evade the responsibility of the management.

My attention was drawn to Uma Devi 2006 SCC (L&S) 753. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case hasheld that the Courts/Tribunals in their sympathy for the handful ad hoc/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 .

Ithas beenheld in 2006 SCC (L&S ) 753. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where itregular appointment ( not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above ofduly 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 tribunals" .

It has been held in ( 1992 ) 4 SCC 118. "Regulariza- tion Ad hoc/Temporary Govt. employees Principles laiddown-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 mere continuance for one year or so does not in every case raise such a presumption Govt . should consider feasibility of regularization having regard to the particular circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy for the concerned person. "

"Labour Law-Regularization-Work charged/ casual/daily wage 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 was submitted from the side of the management that a Court or a Tribunal has no power to direct regularization of services of ad hoc employees. It can at the most direct the management to frame a scheme for regularization of services of the employees and consider such ad hoc employees in accordance with the scheme after considering vacancies , qualifications, seniority among similarly placed employees and past record including attendance etc.

Ithas been held in 2006 (4) Scale that in case a workman has worked continuously for 10 years , his case for feasibility of regularization may be considered by the 65

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

respective Government . This workman has worked for 19 years . The Government should have considered the case of regularization of the present workman. It has not been done so.

Itis imperative on a state in view of Article 39 (d) of theConstitution of India to give employment to its citizens . There is no constitutional scheme urider which a regular employee can be kept on daily wage basis or on adhoc basis or on work order basis for the entire tenure of his service. This workman has worked for 19 years , still his services have not been regularised after 19 years of long experience. He has gained skill for the work which he is discharging.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that qualification etc. should be considered at the initial stage of engagement. This workman has been discharging his duties continuously to the satisfaction of the management and he should have been regularized in 1998 in view of the Constitution Bench Judgment of 2006 (4) Scale . The management has not done so . The workman deserves regularization after 10 years of his initial service. He was engage on 16-06-1988 , so he was entitled for regularization or absorption on 16-06-1998 in view of the judgment ofthe Constitution Bench .

It isheld that the workman is entitled to regularization w.e.f. 16-06-1998 after 10 years of satisfactory service and he is also entitled to get revised scale of 01-01-1996 @ 3200-4500 from 16-06-1998 . This issue is decided accordingly.

Issue No.4.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in view of Surinder Singh's case the workman is entitled to "equal pay for equal work" from the date of his initial engagement.

It issubmitted from the side of the managementthat 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 ofclaimant. Further admittedly claimant has been working where there are regular employees .Even otherwise there is inherent distinction between the nature of work and the responsibility of employees working on regular basis and adhoc basis . Thus principle of equal pay for equal work has no applicability to facts and circumstances of the present case.

Hehas been engaged on work order basis . He is not a regular employee. It has been held in (2003 ) 6 SCC 123 that all the daily wagers are not entitled to "equal pay for equal work" . It is not easy to apply this principle invariably in every case. It has been held in this case as under :-

The principle of " equal pay for equal work" is not always easyto apply . There are inherent difficulties 3986 G1/06-9

in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations , or even in the same organization . It is a concept which requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales . The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.

Ithas beenfurther held in (2003) 1 SCC 250 that- "Equal pay for equal work -Applicability of the principle of, held, depends not only on the nature or volume of work but also on the qualitative difference in reliability and responsibilities as well-Even in ase of same functions , responsibilities do make a cal and substantial difference-It is for the claimant of parity to substantiate a clear - cut basis of equivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination -In absence of requisite substantiating material, High Court erred in granting the NMR workers/daily- wagers/casual workers parity in pay with the regularly employed staff merely on presumption of equality of the nature of work-However, such workers, held, entitledto payment of prescribed minimum wages" .

Inviewof these two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court the principle of " equal pay for equal work" cannot be applied to him for payment from initial date of his engagement. This issue is decided accordingly.

IssueNo. 5.

The workman has worked continuously and to the satisfaction of the management from 16-06-1988 till date . Hiswork is being supervised and controlled by the JE as' has been admitted by MW1 . His case of regularization should have been considered 10 years ago . The management has not done so. The workman is entitled to regularization after 10 years of initial engagement i.e. from 16-06-1998 and he is also entitled to get time scale revised. pay@ 3200-4500 from 16-06-1988 .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the Executive Engineer, CPWD, "U" Division, New Delhi in not regularizing the services of Shri Sumbhari as Sewerman w.e.f. 16-06-1988 is neither fair nor legal nor justified. The workman is entitledto regulariza-tion w.e.f. 16-06-1998 . He is also entitled to pay scale ofRs . 3200-4500 time scale pay from 16-06- 1998. The management is directed to consider the case of regularization of Shri Sumbhari and pay him the entire back wages taking him to be regularized in the pay scale ofRs . 3200-4500w.e.f. 16-06-1998.

Award is given accordingly .

Date:06-12-2006.

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer 66

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 34.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन् इंजीनियर ( पी ) , एम.ई.एस. 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 24/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the work- man was appointed through Employment Exchange , Dehradun vide Garrison Engineer (P) MES Raiwala, Distt . Dehradun vide their letter No.1005/3362/E1A dated 20-10-1982 , as a Lineman on the basis of daily wages w.e.f. 31-1-1983 and had not given any chance of any complaint during the course of his employment. The work and conduct of the workman was quite satisfactory from the initial date of his appointment .

[सं. एल-14012/40/2001- आई आर( डी यू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th December , 2006

That the management terminated the services of the workman on dated 16-11-1983 verbally and without assigning any reason or reasonable cause, even though the service records of the workman was always remained spotless.

S.O. 34. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. - II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer (P) , MES and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-12-2006.

[No. L- 14012/40/2001 - IR (DU)]

That the workman was appointed against a regular post and the workman has completed more than 240days ofhis physical service with the management . Therefore, the workman is entitled to be heard before giving any sort of punishment to him. Such type of termination also amounts to unfair labour practices . Therefore, the act of the management is absolutely illegal, unwarranted, uncon- stitutional , malafide , arbitrary against the provision of law and also against the principles of natural justice.

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, NEW DELHI

Presiding Offier : R.N. RAI .

I. D. No. 24/2003

That at the time of termination no notice was given to the workman by the management, no chargesheet was issued to the workman and no inquiry was conducted by the management and no notice was sent to the Govern- mentonthe prescribed form and no retrenchment compen- sation was paid to the workman at the time of termination ofservice of the workman . Therefore , the management has contravened Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 and the man- datoryprovisions of Chapter 5 -A of the ID Act, 1947 was also not complied with.

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Balwant Singh , S/o. Shri Dhani Ram, R/o . V & PO : Kharawar , Rohtak - 124001 .

That somejunior persons are also still working with themanagement on the same post . In this way the manage- ment has contravened Section 25 G and Section 25 H of the ID Act, 1947. This also shows the malafide intention of the management and also discriminatory in nature .

Versus

TheGarrison Engineers (P) , MES , Raiwala, Dehradun, Uttranchal - 248001 .

AWARD

That the workman previously sent many represen- tations to the management authority requesting them for his reinstatement but no response was received from the management authority even so far . Photocopies of the said representations are attached.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 14012/40/ 2001- IR (DU) Central Government dt. 21-2-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication .

That the workman has already requested the manage- ment many a times regarding his illegal termination but they did not pay any heed to the request of the workman even so far .

The point runs as hereunder :--

"Whether the action of the management of Garrison Engineer (P) , MES Raiwala, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Balwant Singh w.e.f. 16-11-1983 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the work- man is entitled . "

Themanagement has filed written statement.. In the writtenstatement it has been stated that GE (P) MES Raiwala is not in existence to which the notice is issued. This is illegal in the first instance. All the relevant documents were distructedby GE (P) Raiwala during the period.

67 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16 , 1928

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that records pertaining to engagement of daily wagers are destroyed within two years . Records could not be traced, so no records have been filed.

It issubmitted that the workman has himself accepted that he was appointed on daily basis vide GE (P) MES Raiwala letter No. 1005/3362/E1A dated 20-11-1982. On the dailybasis the workman had served as under:-

1. 21-3-1983 to26-3-1983

-6days

2. 20-4-1983 to 30-4-1983 -11 days

3. 9-8-1983 to 13-8-1983

-5days

4. 16-8-1983 to17-8-1983

-2 days

5. 17-9-1983 to 15-11-1983 -60days

Ittranspires from perusal of the documents that the workmanworked on three occasions for a limited period of 224days in all. He was given engagement from 31-03-1983 to17-3-1983 for 75 days, 20-4-1983 to 24-7-1983 for 89 days, 17-9-1983 to 15-11-1983 for 60 days . He has worked in all for224days. He has not filed any other document to show thathehas completed 240 days service.

Total

84days

Theworkmanhas filed photocopies of payment. In case photocopies are believed the workman has worked for224days . He has not worked for 240 days . The burden is on the workman to establish clinchingly that he has worked for 240 days and in that case only Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 will be attracted .

It issubmitted that it is clearly mentioned in GE (P) MES Raiwala letter that the post of Lineman was tempo- rary andhis services can be terminated without anynotice at any time. It is further submitted that he has served 84 days only.

It is submitted that none of the representation from workman has been received by the management . There- fore, thetermination of service as per GE (P) MES Raiwala letter was in order.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has sent the reference so delayshallbe deemed to be condomned. There is nothing inthe order of the Hon'ble High Court that delay shallbe condomned.The Hon'ble High Court has simply asked the Government to send reference to the appropriate forum. So there is no merit inthis argument.

Inview ofthe facts and circumstances explained in the above paras the question of giving regular appoint- ment to the workman at this belated stage does not arise and the application dated 28-5-2003 may please be dis- missed as the application has no merit .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim state- ment and has denied most of the paras of the written state- ment. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .

Myattention was drawn to Ajaib Singh's case, 1999 (6) SCC 82. It was argued that the management has not taken the plea of delay in that case , so the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not consider the point of delay as it was notdisputed by the management . In the instant case the management has disputed delay so 1999 (6) SCC is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that the workman has not been cross- examined by the manage- ment on his affidavit filed in evidence. The management counsel wanted to argue the case on the merit.

Heard argument and perused the papers on the record.

Itwas further submitted that the documents are in possession of the management and adverse inference should be drawn for concealing the documents by the management in view of2003 (3) RSJ 291 Punjab andHaryana (DB) . In the instant case the management has filed documents to prove the facts that recruitment records are destroyed within 10 years . The workman has filed this case in 2003 whereas his services were terminated verbally in November, 1983 .

Thecase law cited by the workman is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman appli- cant that he was appointd on 31-1-1983 on daily wagebasis andhis services were verbally terminated on 16-11-1983 , Hehas worked for 240 days with the management as Line- man. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him. There was nocompliance of Section 25 H and 25G.

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no explanation of delay. Not to speak of plausible or satisfactory explanation . There is no explanation at all what prevented the workman to approach this forumafter a longtime of 19 years . It is settled law that stale claim made after an inordinate and unexplained period could not be entertained.

My attention was drawn to 2005 (5) SCC page 91 paras 12 and 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that long delay impedes the maintenance of the records and It is settled law that the workman has to prove his working of240 days on the basis ofdocumentary evidence. Onlyon his assertion in his affidavit it cannot be held that the workman has worked for 240 days . The workman has filed Ex .WW1 /1 . This appointment letter mentions tempo- raryappointment of75 days only . WW1/4 is regarding pay- ment. The workman has been made payment for 224 days . Hehas not been made any payment for 240 days . He has not filed any paper to prove that he has worked for 240days.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) )

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

more so when there is a case of240 days working in a given year,preceding the termination . Belated claim should not be considered.

It has beenheld in (2001 ) 6 SCC 222 as under :-

"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appro- priate government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act . It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner . There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service."

In the instant case reference has been made after aа delay of long 18 years . Limitation Act is not applicable in ID cases but stale cases should not be considered. Delay in the instant case is inordinate and relief can be rejected. onthe ground of delay alone . The workman has not filed documents to prove that he has worked for 240 days . The law cited by the workman is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Garrison Engineer (P), MES Raiwala, Dehradun in terminating the services of Shri Balwant Singh w.e.f. 16-11-1983 is legal and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly.

Date:05-12-2006.

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 35.- 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 60/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/186/2001- आई आर( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2006 S.O. 35. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 11-12-2006.

[No. L-40012/186/2001 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , 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. 60/2001

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Balwan Singh, S/o. Shri Siri Chand , Pana- Pachosia, V & PO : Mandauthi , Distt: Jhajjar (Haryana) .

Versus

The Post Master , Bahadurgarh, Distt: Jhajjar (Haryana) .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No.L-40012/186/ 2001- IR (DU) Central Government dtd. 09-10-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the action of the management of Department of Post, Bahadurgarh in terminating the services of Shri Balwan Singh w.e.f 25-9-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to."

The workman applicant haş filed statement ofclaim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that he was appointed as E.D. on 1st February, 1998 on a fixed salary ofRs . 1900/- per month.

That during the course of his employment his work was found satisfactory and he went on working till 27th September , 1999. That on 27th September, 1999 his ser- vices were illegally terminated without assigning any rea- son. No notice or charge sheet was ever issued to him .

That the statutory clause of 25 F and 25 N were not adhered to . That as per the rules the E.D. Agent Shyam Sunder must have joined the duty after 90 days and I must have been relieved .

That I was assured by the management that I was being kept at regular employee after 90 days . That I have worked for more than 240 days .

The M.P. High Court has very clearly ordered in the case ofGovt . of Nehru Degree College Sabalgarh, Distt. Morena Vs. Ashok Kumar Verma and others 1994 (LLR 857 M.P. High Court) .

"Termination of the respondent computed 240 days ofcontinuous service in the calendar year, without com- plying with the provision of 25 F, Labour Court's order quashed-ordered to be reinstated with back wages ." 69 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

Similarly in the case of Kerala Private Motor and Mechanical Workers Federation Vs. State of Kerala 1993 (LLR 364-Kerala H.C.) . It is stated that:

Dhas ordered that every Department ofGovernment can- notbe treated to be Industry where the appointment are regulated by the Statutory Rules , the concept of Indus- try to that extent stands excluded.

The Ld. Court has no jurisdiction to this case as the case is to be dealt with under Central Administrative Tribunal . Photocopy of Chapter - III of the CAT Act, 1985 is enclosed herewith as Annexure C/I to C/6 .

"Every person employed in establishment is a work- man as defined U/s 2 (s) whether he is temporary, permanent,probationer and the question of 240days is relevant to claim benefits accrued on basis of con- tinuous service as defined U/ s 25 B."

Similarly Bombay High Court says in the case of Tata Consultancy Vs. Valsah K. Nair and others (1997 II) CLR1099 (BombayHigh Court):

"Even though an employee initially appointed tem- porarily for two months but having worked for about one year will amount to continuous service ."

In the department of Post appointments are regu- lated by the statutory rules so the department of post is not covered under the concept of Industry and Industrial DisputeAct is not applicable in the case, hence the case is not within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court so it is prayed that the present case is not maintainable in the Hon'ble High Court and may kindly be dismissed, please .

That the applicant here has worked regularly and continuously from 6th February, 1998 to 27th September , 1999. It is more than a year or 240days .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim state- ment and has denied most of the paras of the written state- ment . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he has worked continuously from 1-2-1998 on fixed sal- ary of Rs.1900 per month up to 24-9-1999 . His services were terminated w.e.f. 25-9-1999 . He has worked for 240 days . He has not been given any notice or pay in lieu of notice under Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947. He is not employed in any establishment, so he is entitled to rein- statement with full backwages .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the department of posts and EDAs have to provide substitute for the period of their leave under Rule 5 of P & T (EDAs ) (Conduct and Service Rules 1964) . Shri Sunder Sham who was EDR Kanonda met an accident on 5-2-1998 , applied for leave and produced Shri Balwan Singh, S/o Shri Siri Chand as substitute for the period of his leave who was approved by the competent authority. He remained on leave up to 15-1-1999 and after ward he absented him from duty and verbally informed that he will submit the leave application in the prescribed proforma but after a long wait when he gave no application providing Shri Balwan Singh as a substitute the said Shri Balwan Singh was not allowed to continue and the arrangement was made by extending the duty of EDBPM and a proposal of mursering the post ofEDR Kanonda incumbent of which is absent from duty is under consideration in the department. Shri Balwan Singh was not extra departmental agent of the Department of Posts . He was substitute provided by Shri Sunder Sham cxtradepartmental agent .

Theapplicant was not appointed. But he was pro- posed as substitute by Shri Sunder Sham , EDR from 05-02-1998 . The applicant was paid O/S EDR allowance .

The applicant has worked as outsider substitute till 25th September , 1999 instead of 27th September, 1999. The applicant was neither appointed nor selected by the competent authority under the existing rules . There is no provision of Notice or Charge sheet issued to proposed substitute in EDAs (Service and Conduct ) Rules , 1964.

There is no provision in the departmental rules to regular the substitute in service as ED Agent .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that in view of the Conduct and Service Rules, 1964 the EDAhas to provide substitute for the period of his leave under rule 5 of the said Act . Shri Sunder Sham who was EDAKanonda met an accident on 5-2-1998, applied for leave and produced Shri Balwan Singh, S/o Shri Siri Chand as substitute for the period of his leave which was approved by the competent authority . He remained on leaveup to 15-1-1999 and after wards he absented him fromdutyand verbally informed that he will submit leave application in the prescribed proforma but after a long wait when he gave no application. Shri Balwan Singh worked as a substitute . He was not allowed to continue and the arrangement was made by extending the duty of EDBPM and a proposal of mursering the post of EDA Kanonda incumbent of which is absent from duty is inder consideration in the department . Shri Balwan Singh was not extradepartmental agent Department of Posts. He was substitute provided by Shri Sunder Sham extra depart- mentalagent.

Itwas further submitted that the EDA, Shri Sunder Sham couldbe sanctioned leave for 180 days in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgment of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others Vs. State ofBihar andOrs . decided on 26-3-1997 (SCP(c) No.7957 of 1996 and reported as S.C. (SLJ) No. 1972 (2) pages 24 and 25 Annexure 70

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

Conduct and Service Rules, 1964 and he orally informed that he would sent leave application in the prescribed proforma along with medical certificate . So the manage- ment awaited and extended the services of the workman as substitute. When it was found that EDA, Shri Sunder Sham will not turn, the service of Shri Balwan Singh was termi- nated as substitute was no longer required.

It was further submitted that initially the workman was engaged as substitute . The workman has admitted in his cross examination that he was given engagement as a substitute on the place of Shri Sunder Sham . Shri Sunder Sham brought him to the Post Office and prior to proceed- ing to leave requested the management to take him as sub- stitute . So the engagement given to the workman was of a substitute .

It is true that he has worked for 240 days beyond leave period of Shri Sunder Sham but the management was bound in view of request of Shri Sunder Sham to wait for his application for further leave . When the management found that Shri Sunder Sham would not join , the services of the workman were terminated as he cannot be retained as a substitute . The workman worked as a substitute for the period beyond the leave period of Shri Sunder Shyam . He was continued hoping that Shri Sunder Shyam, EDA will apply for further leave . In the instant case the workman has worked only as a substitute of Shri Sunder Shyam.

Shri Sunder Sham was sanctioned leave from 5-2-1998 up to 15-1-1999 so this period cannot be counted for the working days of the workman. He worked from 16-1-1999 to 25-9-1999 for 249 days as a substitute only. The management waited for application of the EDA Shri Sunder Sham. Shri Sunder Sham could remain on leave for 180 days so the work of the workman for 180 days is as a substitute of Shri Sunder Sham. From the date of initial engagement till his tenure he has worked as substitute of Shri Sunder Sham . He has not been given any fresh engagement as daily wager or ad hoc employee . So he shallbe deemed to be a substitute for the entire period of his service as he worked on the place of EDA Shri Sunder Sham. The workman has not completed 240 days work.

Itwas further submitted from the side of the manage- ment that the applicant is not a workman in view of the decision of theHon'ble Apex Court. It has been held in JT 1996(2) SC457 that:

" India is a sovereign socialist, secular democratic republic has to establish an egalitarian social order under rule of law. The welfare measures partake the character of sovereign functions and the traditional duty to maintain law and order is no longer concept of the State. Directive principles of State Policyen- join on the State diverse duties under Part IV of the Constitution and the performance of the duties is

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] constitutional function. One of the duty of the State is to provide telecommunication service to the general public and an amenity, and so it is the essen- tial part of the sovereign functions of the State as a welfare State . It is not, therefore , an industry ." In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court the applicant is not a workman . So his case cannot be considered in this aspect of the matter as well . No other law whether postal department is an Industry or not has been cited by the workman . So Postal Department is not an Industry and the applicant is not a workman in view of section 2( s) of the iD Act , 1947. He is not entitled to get any relief as he has not completed 240 days as daily wager or ad hoc appointee . He has worked all along as a substi- tute. Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 is not attracted in his case. He is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Department of Posts Bahadurgarh in terminating the services of ShriBalwan Singh w.e.f. 25-09-1999 isjust and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly .

Date:05-12-2006.

R.N. RAI, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर, 2006

का.आ. 36.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्लू, सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 202/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -22012/215/2002- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006

S.O. 36. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 202/ 2003) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Sub AreaManager , M/s . Singh & Sons, and their workman , receivedby the Central Government on 8-12-2006.

[No. L-22012/215/2002- IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 71 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16 , 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. 202/2003

Date 30-11-2006

संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Petitioner

[सं. एल-42012/66/2004-आई आर( सी एम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006 : ShrikrishanMeshram, Though Adiwasi Mazdoor Koyla Khadan Sanghatana, Murpar Project (WCL), P.O. Khadsangi, Tah. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S.) Versus

Respondent : The Sub AreaManager,

MurparProject of ( Umrer Area) ofWCL, Post Khadsangi, Tah . Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S. ) AWARD

S.O. 37. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2005) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of the Lady HardingeMedical College and Shrimati S.K. Hospital and their workman, received by the Central Government on 08-12-2006.

[No.L-42012/66/2004- IR (CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, NEW DELHI Shri Sant Singh Bal, Presiding Officer I.D. No. 3/2005

1.The CentralGovernment after satisfyingthe existence ofdisputes between Shrikrishan Meshram, Though Adiwasi Mazdoor Koyla Khadan Sanghatana, Murpar Project (WCL), P.O. Khadsangi , Tah. Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur (M.S. ) , Party No. 1 and The Sub Area Manager, Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL, Post Khadsangi , Tah. Chimur , Distt . Chandrapur (M.S. ) Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L -22012/215/2002- IR (CM- II) Dt. 5-8-2003 under clause (d) of sub-sections (1 ) and (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following Schedule .

IN THEMATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN: Shri-Om Parkash son of Shri Ramji Das Rawal, 726, Gali Dorwali, 6Tutu, Paharganj ,

NewDelhi . ......Workman

Versus

2. "Whether the demand of the Adiwasi Mazdoor KoylaKhadan Sanghatana, for regularization ofthe workmen (as per the list enclosed) from the management in relation toMurpar Project of WCL is legal and justified? If so, to what relief they are entitled?"

LadyHardinge Medical College and Shrimati S. K. Hospital, New Delhi .

....Management

Present: None

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.L-42012/66/2004- IR (CM - II ) dated 20-12-2004 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Lady Hardinge Medical College and Smt. S.K. Hospital , New Delhi in terminating/discontinuing Services of Shri Om Prakash w.e.f. 15-2-2001, is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

3. The above dispute came for hearing before the Tribunal on 21-11-2006. Nobody was present on the day when it comes for hearing and both the parties were absent . The perusal of record indicates that the notices were issued of these disputes on 2-6-2005 and despite of the notices nobody appeared till 21-11-2006 . Eventhe statement ofclaiin is not filed and it is pending for filing the statement of claim only. This indicates that the parties particularly a petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case . I do not think that any purpose will be served by keeping it pending for final the statement of claim only. Hence the dispute is disposed offordefaultofthe petitioner. Its stands dismissed and it is answered in the negative that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as per schedule .

4. Hence, it is dismissed for the default of the peti- tioner for not filing of the Statement of Claim . Thus the Award.

Dated:30-11-2006 A. N. YADAV, Fresiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर, 2006

का.आ. 37.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार लेडी हार्डिंग मेडिकल कॉलेज एवं श्रीमति एस. के. हॉस्पिटल के प्रबंधतंत्र के

2. Brief facts of the case as culled from record are that the workman was employed through employment exchange with the management respondent since February , 1989 and he worked hard, honestly, diligently and to the entire satisfaction of the Management and unblemished record of service. He has been regular in reporting and joining the office and has been in continuous service for a period of273days from February 1988 to December , 1989 and again for a period of242 days from February, 1990 to November , 1990 and thus he has been in continuous 72

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II SEC . 3(ii)] and thereafter none appeared on behalf of the workman on subsequent hearings i.e. 20-3-2006, 1-6-2006, 7-8-2006 and on 3-10-2006 when the case was adjourned with the directions that no further adjournment shall be granted to the workman for appearance and the case shall be proceeded in his absence and case was adjourned to 30-11-2006 . Today also none appeared on behalf of the workman. It appears that the workman is not interested in theprosecution of this case giving rise to the presumption that he does not dispute the action of the management of terminating/discontinuing services of the workman . Hence NoDispute Award is accordingly passed . File be consigned to record room .

Dated: 30-11-2006

service as envisaged by the I.D. Act, 1947 but management with mala fide intention and ulterior motives did not maintain the attendance register as required under the provisions of I.D. Act . He was never issued any appointment letter, Identity Card and other benefits which are availed of by other co- workers of the same status . He was drawing salary and allowances as per declaration of appropriate authority but the management failed to provide facilities to the workman like Minimum wages as provided to Delhi Administration and D.A. , Earned wages , Overtime Allowance, Leave Wages, Festival Leaves, Casual Leaves , Weekly Off, Salary slip , E.S.I.P.F. and Annual increment etc.Minimum Wages Act and the workman being aggrieved by such illegal acts of the management raised demand for providing such facilities as provided to the other co- employees of the management . The management being annoyed by the workman for raising such legal demands arbitrarily, illegally and without any legitimate reasons and without any written notice terminated the services of the workman on 15-2-2001 without any show -cause notice and/ or without conducting domestic enquiry as well as without complying the provisions of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act . The action of the management terminating the services of the workman is not only illegal , unjustified and contrary to the provisions of Natural Justice , but also arbitrary , which has rendered the workman jobless and being the sole bread earner of the family is brought to the verge of starvation. Workman approached the management to reinstate him. However , management kept on sleeping over the matter and the workman was forced to move the Labour Commissioner , Delhi . Workman is unemployed since date of termination despite his efforts . He is entitled to be regularized and reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service . As such he seeks reinstatement with full back wages and regularization of his employment .

3. The claim was contested by the respondent filing written statement raising preliminary objections that he has not exhausted the available channels . The present dispute is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1970 SC, page 1407 titled S.J. Hospital Vs. K. L. Sethi . The respondent is not an industry within the definition of Section 2 (j ) of the I.D. Act as the claimant is employee of Central Government and is governed by C. C. S. Rules and the claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. On merits it is stated that the workman performed duty on daily wages basis from January 1990 till November , 1990 as detailed in para 1 of the written statement on merits and it is stated that he has worked with breaks and not continuously and is not covered by the provisions of I. D. Act. His nature of job was not permanent in nature but on day to day basis . Rest of paras are also denied . Claim is sought to be dismissed as untenable .

5.Written statement was followed by rejoinder by the workman denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating those of the claim statement .

6. Perusal of the record shows that Brother of the workman appeared on 9-1-2006 on hehalf of the workman

S. S. BAL, Presidindng Officer नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

८

का.आ. 38.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/1993 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/286/1993- आई आर( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006

S.O. 38. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/1993) of the Central Government the Industrail Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on8-12-2006.

[No. L-22012/286/ 1993 - IR (C -II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT: Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer Reference No. 49 of 1993

PARTIES:

Agent, Kumardihi ' B ' Colliery of ECL, Ukhra, Burdwan

Versus

Working President, Colliery Mazdoor Union , Ukhra , Burdwan .

73 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

REPRESENTATIVES :

Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

For the Management :

Md . SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

For the Union (Workman) :

Sri M. Mukherjee , Advocate .

STATE : West Bengal

INDUSTRY : COAL

Dated31-10-2006

AWARD

का.आ. 39.- 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 42/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/57/1996- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 8th December, 2006 Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of Sub section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Letter No. L- 22012/286/93 - IR(C -II) , dated 16-12-93 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

S.O. 39. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of the SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 08-12-2006.

[No. L- 22012/57/ 1996- IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer "Whether the action of the management of Kumardihi 'B ' Collieryunder Bankola Area of M/s . E.C. Ltd. PO Ukhra, Distt . Burdwan in dismissing Sri Bhim Gope , UG Loader, Kumardihi ' B ' Colliery , Bankola Area, M/s . E.C. Ltd. , vide their letter No. Agent/KB /PD/90/ Dis/1240 dated 26/27-7-90 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVRENMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR No. CGIT/LC/R/42/97 Presiding Officer : SHRIC . M. SINGH

The Secretary,

....Workman/Union

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Branch Dipika Project, Post:GevraProject, Distt. Korba (CG).

Versus

Sub AreaManager, SECL, Dipika Project, Gevra Project, Distt. Korba (CG) ....Management After having received the Order No. L- 22012/286/93- IR(C- II ), dated 16-12-93 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference Case No. 49 of 1993 was registered on 23-12-93 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the scheduled date and file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . Pursuant to the said order notices through the registered post were issued to the parties concerned . Sri P. K. Das , Advocate appeared to represent the management and Sri M. Mukherjee , Advocate to represent the union and both the parties filed their written statement in support of their claims .

AWARD

Passed on this 14th day ofNovember , 2006

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012 /57/96 - IR(C - II ) dated 24-2-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Dipika Project, Bilaspur of SECL in not promoting Shri Raja Ram Kshatri , Clerk Grade - II to the post of Clerk Gr . Iw.e.f. 16-6-93 or 4-3-95 and in not paying him wages from June 94 to Aug. 94, Nov. 94 and Jan. 95to Feb. 95 isjust and legal? If not, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

2.After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 3-3-97 and notices were issued to the parties From perusal of the record it transpires that the case was fixed for final hearing but in the meantime the learned lawyer left taking any step on behalf of the union. It was submitted by him that he has got no instruction from the side of the workman concerned . It was also submitted that he has got no contact with the workman concerned since a long time so he is not in a position to say as to whether the workman is alive or not. It is clear from the record itself that the workman is not interested to pursue the case as he has lost the interest . The reference is of the year 1993. So , it is not advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served. As such it is hereby . Ordered that let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New

3986GI /06-10 74

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

to file their respective statements of claim . Order sheet dated 27-7-06 of this reference proceedings reveals that in spite of sufficient service of notice on the workman/ Union, no body put in appearance for them and therefore itwas ordered that the case shall proceed exparte against workman/Union. On the next date i.e. 9-11-06 , when the case was called out, no body responded for the workman/ Union and Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate came present for the management . He submitted that he has not to file any statement of claim on behalf of management. He also requested that the case be closed for award. Therefore , the reference was closed for award .

3. It is clear from the above that both the parties to the reference are not interested in the Industrial Dispute referred to this tribunal . Under the above circumstances , this tribunal is left with no option but to pass no dispute award. No Dispute Award is passed without any order as to costs .

4.Copy of award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2006

का. आ. 40.-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 136/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/ 105/1996- आई आर(सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006

S.O. 40. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 136/ 1997) of the Central Government the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006.

[No. L-22012/105/ 1996- IR (C - II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR No. CGIT/LC/R/136/97 Presiding Officer : SHRI C. M. SINGH The President,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Branch Dipika Project , Post: Gevra Project ,

....Workman/Union Distt . Korba(CG).

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

The Sub Area Manager ,

SECL, Dipika Project, PostGevra Project, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) .

..Management Bench ofLok Adalat

1. Shri C. M. Singh, PresidingOfficer CGIT-cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur

Chairman 2 Shri Shailendra Pandey, Advocate

Member 3. Shri Liyakat Ullah , Advocate

Member

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of November , 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L-22012/105/96-IR(C - II ) dated20-5-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the denial of the management of SECL Dipika Project, Bilaspur to pay OT wages to Shri R. P. Kathoute , M.T.K. presently working as clerk Gr . III for performingduty on 17-9-95 (rest day) is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 27-5-97 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claim.

3.During the proceedings of this reference workınan Shri R. P. Kathoute moved application for withdrawal of the reference on the ground that the matter has been decided between the parties and therefore he does not want to contest this reference .

4. Shri A. K. Shashi Advocate for management `identified the signatures of witnesses Shri P. K. Dutta and Shri R. K. Sharma on this application and Shri G. N. Durga Prasad, Personal Manager of the management identified the signature of workman Shri R. P. Kathoute on this application. It is very clear from the above application that now no dispute is left between the parties and 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 costs .

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer,

Chairman SHAILENDRA PANDEY , Advocate,

Memeber

LIYAKATULLAH , Advocate,

Memeber 75

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

Passed on this 26th day of November, 2006

1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour vide itsNotification No.1-22011/322/96- IR(C - II) dated 24-7-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

का.आ. 41.-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 220/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22011/322/ 1996- आई आर. ( सी--II ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006

"Whether the action of the management of SECL. Balgi Project, Bilaspur in not promoting Shri Bali Ram and Sunil Singh, Electrical Fitters Cat- IVto the postofElectrical Fitter Cat. V w.e.f. 25-4-95 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?"

2.Afterthe reference order was received, it was duly registered on 8-8-97 and notices were issued tothe parties to file their respective statements of claim. While the reference case was in progress , the management moved application to close the dispute as settled outside the court ortribunal and filed the settlement deed on Form "H" . This deed was duly verified before me by the authorised counsels of the parties . The following are the terms of settlement deed:-

S.O. 41. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 220/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Crispute between the employers in relation to the managerment of CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur ass shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006.

[No. L-22011/322/ 1996-IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, DesikOfficer

i. It is agreed that Shri Sunil S/o Ramudar and Shri Baliram, S/o Santram shall be placed as Electrical Fitter , Cat . V w.e.f. 1-1-95 and thereafter in Cat . VI w.e.f. 6-3-1999.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/220/97

ii. It is agreed that no back wages or con- sequential benefit will be given to Shri Sunil S/o Ramudar and Shri Baliram, S/o Santram on placement as Electrical Fitter , Cat. V and Electrical Fitter, Cat. VI exceptpay fixation shall be done notionally till the date of implementation of the settlement .

PresidingOfficer : SHRI C. M. SINCIH

Workmen/Union

TheVicePresident (C), M.P. Koyla Shramik Sangh (CITU), Branch Surkachar colliery, POBankimongra, Distt. Korba(C.G)

iii. It is agreed that both the above employees shall not compare their positions with other employees in future for supersession to the postofAsstt. Foreman in T & S Grade-C at any stage subsequently.

Versus

iv. It is agreed that the case, which is pending at CGIT, Jabalpurunder case No. LC/R/220/97 in this regard will stand withdrawn by virtue of this settlement .

Management

TheSub AreaManager, SECL, Balgi Project, POBalgi Project, Distt.Bilaspur(C.G)

Bench ofLok Adalat

v. It is also agreed that this dispute is fully and finallyresolved and the same will not be raised before any Forum/Court/Authority of Government machinery by the person concerned or through any Union in future .

Chairman

1. Shri C.M.Singh, Presiding Officer CGIT Cum Labour Court, Jabalpur

vi. It is agreed that copy of the settlement be sent toappropriate authority for registrationunder ID(C) Rules 1957 for close down the case.

Member

2. Shri Shailendra Pandey, Advocate

I have gone through the terms of settlement. They are legal and proper , Under the circumstances , it shall be

Member

3. Shri Liyakat Ullah, Advocate 76

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of November , 2006 just and proper to pass award in accordance with the terms of settlement without any order as to costs . The award is passed in terms of settlement without any order as to costs.

3. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour as per rules .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No.L-22012/328/96 - IR dated 11-7-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer -Chairman SHAILENDRA PANDEY, Advocate -Member SHRI LIYAKATULLAH, Advocate -Member

नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

"Whether the action of the management of Chachai and Vivek Sub Area under Sohagpur area of SECL indismissing Shri Puniram, Labour , T.No. 1870, Vivek Nagar incline from services w.e.f. 23-6-95 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled and from which date ? "

2. This reference proceeded exparte against workman Shri. Puniram/Union vide order dated 1-8-05 of this tribunal beca use inspite of sufficient service of notice on the work man Union by registered AD post, no one put in appearance on behalf of either workman or the Union .

का.आ. 42.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 207/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/328/1996- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th December , 2006

3.The management filed their Written Statement . The case o f management in brief is as follows . That workman Shri F'uniram was initially appointed as loader w.e.f. 5-12-1971 at Burhar No. 3 Mine . Subsequently he was transferredfrom Burhar No. 3 Mines to Vivek Nagar incline w.e.f. 12-9-92 . He was a habitual absentee . He remained absent from duty on several occassions for which he was issued warning letters , chargesheet etc. However, the workmain did not show any improvement in his conduct. That the attendance particulars for the year 92 to 94 are givenbelow:

Year

Attendance

1962

1993

108

S.O. 42. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Ceritral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 207/ 1997) of the Central Government the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 8-12-2006.

199 4

[No. L-22012/328/ 1996- IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT /LC/R/207/97

Presiding Officer : SHRI C.M. SINGH

TheGeneral Secretary,

KoylaMazdoor Sabha (UTUC) , Sohagpur Area, PostDhanpuri , Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Workman/Union

The workman remained absent from duty w.e.f. 3-7-93 wit hout permission, intimation or sanctioned leave . For this , l'he was issued with a warning letter No. 1178 dated 12-7-93 . He was again issued with another warning letter No.. 1575 dated 31-3-94 for absenting from duty for the periodl 119-3-94 to 30-3-94. The workman remained absent from duty w'.e.f. 13-8-94 without intimation, permission or sanctioned leave . He was therefore issued with a chargesheet No. 2493 dated 3/4-10-94 for the aforesaid absenteeism. Pending Disciplinary action the workman was permitted to resume his duty vide order No. 2513 dated 7-4-94. The workman submitted reply dated 6-10-94 on the said chargeshe et . As the reply was not found satisfactory, it was decided to conduct a departmental enquiry by appointing Shri M.K.Ghosh as EnquiryOfficer .

Versus

The Sub Area Manager ,

Chachai Group ofMines , PostAmlai Colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

....Management

The workin nan participated in the enquiry. He was granted opportun, ity to defend himself. After conclusion ofenquiry, the Enq uiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding the workn nan guilty of charges . The competent authority after bein, g satisfied that the enquiry has been conducted legally, properly following the principles of 77

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006, को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/492/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2006

S.O. 43. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Amlohri Project ofNCL and their workmen, which was received by theCentral Government on 8-12-2006.

natural justice agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Competent Authority issued a show cause notice No. 558 dated 28-3-95 (English) and No. 593 dated 3-4-95 (Hindi ) to the workmah. The workman did not submit any representation on the show cause notice . In view of the above facts and circumstances , the Competent Authority decided to remove the services of workman. Hence he was removed from service vide order No. 268 dated 23-6-95 . If for any reason what- so- ever, the departmental enquiry is held to be illegal , the management reserves their right to prove the misconduct before the tribunal . In view of the above , it is submitted by the management that the action of the management in-removing the workman from service is legal and proper to the gravity ofmisconduct proved against him.

[No. L-22012/492/2004- IR (CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 4. As the reference case proceeded exparte against the workınan , there is no evidence ofworkman for proving his case .

ANNEXURE

5. The management in support of their case filed affidavit of Shri K.A.Sunder , the Dy. Personnel Manager inSECL, Sohagpur area.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

6. I have heard Shri A.K.Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management and I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

No. CGIT/LC/R/1/06 Presiding Officer : SHRI C.M. SINGH

The Secretary,

..Workman/Union

Rashtriya Koyla Mazdoor Sangh ( INTUC) , Amlohri Project, PO. Amlohri , Sidhi , Madhya Pradesh

Versus

7. The case of the management is fully proved by the uncontroverted and unchallenged affidavit of management's witness Shri K.A.Sunder Therefore the reference must be decided in favour of the management and against the workman . Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the opinion that the parties be directed to bear their own costs of this reference.

Management

The ChiefGeneral Manager , Amlohri Project ofNCL, PO Amlohri , Distt. Sidhi , Madhya Pradesh

Bench ofLok Adalat

8. In view of the above , the reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman/Union holding that the action of the management of Chachai and Vivek SubArea under Sohagpur area of SECL in dismissing Shri Puniram, Labour , T. No. 1870, Viveknagar incline from services w.e.f. 23-6-95 is legal and justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief . The parties shall bear their own costs ofthis reference .

Chairman

1. Shri C.M. Singh, PresidingOfficer CGIT-Cum-LabourCourt, Jabalpur

9. Copy ofthe award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

Member

2. Shri Shailendra Pandey, Advocate

C.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

Member

3. Shri Liyakat Ullah , Advocate

नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of November, 2006.

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L-22012/492/2004- IR (CM - II ) dated 23-12-05 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

का. आ. 43.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या: 1/2006) 78

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

"Whether the action of the management of Amlohri Project of NCL in imposing punishment upon Shri Amar Singh Bahadur , Senior Store Keeper (SLU) Grade A by degrading him to clerk Gr . III and subsequent deduction of salary is legal and justified? Ifnot , to what relief he is entitled?"

2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 2-1-06 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claim.

3. During the pendency of this reference workman Shri Amar Singh Bahadur appeared in person and filed application with the prayer that a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the award be passed accordingly . His counsel Shri Harbinder Singh, Advocate verified the settlement on behalf of the workman . The workman identified the signature of the other party i.e. General Manager on the settlement deed. The following are the terms of settlement :-

1. श्री अमर सिंह , स्टोर कीपर ग्रेड-1 , निगाही परियोजना को फार्म- एच में समझौता होने की तिथि से वरीय स्टोर कीपर ( एसएलयू) टी.एण्ड एस. ग्रेड- ए के पद पर पदस्थापित किया जायेगा और उसी दिन से टी. एण्ड एस. ग्रेड- ए ( एन.सी. डब्ल्यू.ए. 7 ) के वेतनमान 7824-235-12054 में पुनर्निधारित किया जायेगा ।

2. श्री अमर सिंह को वरीय स्टोर कीपर ( एसएलयू) के पद पर पुनस्थापित किये जाते हुए, उनका उसी स्थिति ( स्टेज ) पर निर्धारित किया जायेगा जो अगर नीचे के ग्रेड के वेतनमान में , वरीय स्टोर कीपर ( एसएलयू) के पद पर पदावनति के दिन मिल रहे मूल वेतन को सुरक्षित रखा जाता एवं तदनुसार नीचे के ग्रेड ( ग्रेड-1 ) का वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि पाने के बाद होता अर्थात् पदावनति के साथ उनका वेतन प्रोटेक्ट किये जाने की दशा में मिल रहा होता । 3. श्री अमर सिंह , स्टोर कीपर , निगाही परियोजना की वरीय स्टोरकीपर ( एसएलयू) में पदस्थापना के पश्चात् उनकी वरीयता उनकी पदस्थापना की तिथि तक के वरीय स्टोर कीपर ( एसएलयू) में सबसे नीचे रहेगी ।

4. श्री अमर सिंह के इस प्रकरण के संबंध में यह अंतिम समझौता है । श्री अमर सिंह स्वयं या किसी श्रमिक संघ के माध्यम से किसी भी स्तर पर कोई विवाद नहीं उठायेंगे ।

[PART II-SEC. 3( іі )) 4. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer-Chairman SHAILENDRA PANDEY, Advocate-Member LIYAKAT ULLAH , Advocate Member नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 44.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/58/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 8th December , 2006

S.O. 44. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Ghorawari Colliery of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006.

[No. L- 22012/58/2001 - IR(CM- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/9/02

Presiding Officer: SHRI C.M. SINGH

The ChiefGeneral Secretary,

Μ.Ρ. Κ.Κ. Μ. Ρ . (HMS) , PO Junnardeo, Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Chhindwara

5. इस समझौते की एक प्रति पीठासीन अधिकारी , सीजीआईटी, जबलपुर के समक्ष नो -डिस्प्यूट अवार्ड पारित किये जाने हेतु प्रस्तुत किया जायेगा और नो-डिस्प्यूट अवार्ड पारित होने के बाद ही इस समझौते का क्रियान्वयन किया जायेगा ।

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Ghorawari Colliery ofWCL,

POGhorawari ,

Chhindwara

I have very carefully gone through the terms of settlement. They are proper and legal. In view of the above, it shall be just and proper to pass award in terms of settlement. Consequently the award is passed in terms of settlement without any order as to costs . The terms of settlement shall form the part of this award .

Management Bench ofLok Adalat

1. Shri C. M. Singh , PresidingOfficer CGIT-Cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur

Chairman [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

.....Member 2. Shri Shailendra Pandey , Advocate

3. Shri Liyakat Ullah, Advocate

.....Member

AWARD

Passed on this 26th day of November, 2006.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No. L- 22012/58/2001 - IR (CM - II ) dated 20-12-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Manager, Ghorawari Colliery ofWCL, PO Ghorawari, Distt . Chhindwara in dismissing Shri Mansingh S/o Ghudan, Tub Loader from services w.e.f. 6-1-98 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief he is entitled to?"

2. After the reference order was received, it was duły registered on 3-1-2002 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim.

3. During the pendency of this reference management moved an application to pass award in terms of settlement in Lok Adalat .

4. Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate, counsel for management identified the signatures of Shri Gulam Hussain , Personnel Manager of the management on the settlement deed and Shri Gulam Hussain the Personnel Manager identified the signature of Shri B. D. Acharya, Dy. PM and Shri A.P. Vishwakarma Personnel Manager on the aforesaid deed . Shri Gulam Hussain, Personnel Manager of the management also submitted that the settlement deed was signed by workman Shri Man Singh in his presence. The following are the terms of settlement of the settlement deed:

(i) That Shri Man Singh S/o Ghuran , Ex- Tub Loader , Ghorawari Colliery shall be reinstated as Tub Loader.

(ii) That on his reinstatement , he will be posted in U/G Mines of Damua Colliery.

(iii) That the period of idleness from the date ofdismissal to the date of joining will be treated as " dies -non " i.e. no-work - no -pay and the worker will not be entitled for any wages and consequent benefits arising thereof.

(iv) This agreement shall not be quoted as a precedence for resolving the dispute of similar nature .

(v) This is full and final settlement in respect of the employee concerned. Neither workman concerned himself nor through any union shall raise any dispute in regard to this dispute at any level/forum or in court .

(vi) This settlement will be filed before the CGIT Jabalpur with request for consent award .

Ihave gone through the terms of settlement. They are legal and proper . Therefore it shall be just and proper to pass award in accordance with the terms of settlement without any order as to costs . Consequently the award is passed in accordance with the terms of settlement without any order as to costs.

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer-Chairman SHAILENDRA PANDEY, Advocate Member LIYAKAT ULLAH, Advocate-Member नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 45.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/402/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 8th December, 2006 S.O. 45. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 107/2005) of the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006.

[No. L-22012/402/2004- IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present:

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . 107 OF 2005 PARTIES:

The Agent, J.K. Nagar Colliery of E.C.L. , Bidhanbag, Burdwan

Versus 80

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Sri S.K. Pandey,

General Secretary,

Koyala Mazdoor Congress ,

Asansol, Burdwan .

REPRESENTATIVES :

For theManagement

Sri P.K. Das , Advocate .

for the management has not filed his written statement in support of his case rather he has left taking any step on behalf of the management since the very next date i.e. 7-11-2005 . Several adjournments were given to the management in between 7-11-2005 to 11-9-2006 to take suitable step but to no effect . The case was ultimately fixed for hearing in absence of the management as no body came to contest the case .

For the Union (Workman): Sri S.K. Pandey ,

General Secretary,

KoyalaMazdoor

Congress, Asansol ,

Burdwan.

4. The case of the union in brief compass as set forth in its written statement is that Sri Ram Brichh Mahato , Shot FireMazdoor was permanent employee at J.K. Nagar Colliery under Satgram Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited.

Coal

Industry

State

WestBengal .

Dated the 18-10-2006

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 402/2004- IR (CM- II ), dated 26-08-2005 has been pleasedto refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

5. The main case of the union is that the workman concerned was charge- sheeted vide Charge -Sheet No. ECL/ JKN/AGIT/PER/ 93 /496 dated 8-2-1993 by the management for his alleged unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 17-11-1992 to 8-2-1993 . The union has claimed that the delinquent workman was sick and was under treatment at Sub-Divisional Hospital , Asansol and after being declared fit he reported to the management for resumption of his duty but he was not allowed to resume his duty. The workman concerned had replied to the charge - sheet and appeared before the enquiry officer where he had submitted his sick certificates etc. for the perusal of the enquiry officer but the report was submitted by the officer against the delinquent workman and the workman was dismissed from the services of the company vide its dismissal Order No. SAT/GM/ PER ( C)/93/876 (P) dated 31-5-1993/2-6-1993 by theGeneral Manager , Satgram Area .

"Whether the action of the management J.K. Nagar Colliery of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh . Ram Brichh Mahato, Roof Dresser from services w.e.f. 2-6-1993 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

6. It is also the case of the union that the workman and the union tried their level best to pursue the management for his reinstatement but no decision was taken and the issue was kept pending for years together . The workman is sitting idle without any job from the date of his dismissal and his entire family is on the verge of starvation . The dismissal order of the delinquent workman is claimed to be illegal and unjustified and accordingly a relief for reinstatement in service alongwith the payment of full back wages and other consequential has been sought.

7. Xerox copies of the charge- sheet , Medical Certificate, enquiry proceeding with its report, dismissal order, copy of the appeal made by the workman and copy ofthe letter of the Dy . CPM of Satgram Area endorsing a note- sheet for reinstatement of the workman have been filedby the union in support of its claim.

2. On after having received the Order No. L- 22012/ 402/2004- IR ( CM - II) dated 26-8-2005 of the reference mentioned above from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 107 of 2005 was registered on 9-9-2005 and accordingly and order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support oftheir claims . In pursuance of the said order notices were issued to the parties concerned through the registered post. Shri S.K. Pandey, General Secretary of the union appeared on behalf of the workman concerned and Sri P.K. Das , Advocate appeared on behalf of the management along with a letter of authority duly issued by the competent authority.

3. On perusal of the record it transpires that Sri S.K. Pandey , General Secretary of the union has filed his written statement alongwith the Xerox copies of some relevant documents in support of his case . It is further clear from the order sheets of the record that Sri P.K. Das , Advocate

8. From perusal of the copy of the charge- sheet it appears that the wokman concerned was charge - sheeted for committing misconduct underClause No. 17(1 )n, 17 (1 ) d and 17( 1) 1 of the model standing order applicable to the establishment but the only charge of unauthorized absence w.e.f. 21-11-1992 to 27-3-1993 as per the enquiry report is said to have been established .

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

imposing the punishment which has not been done by the management in this case .

9. It is clear from the enquiry proceeding and its report that the workman concerned had received the charge- sheet and had participated to the enquiry proceeding . He has admitted in his statement that he did not send any information to the management about his illness and was absent from his duties from 17-11-92 to 29-3-93 due to illness and during the said relevant period he was undergoing treatment of Infective Hepatitis with jaundice at S.D. Hospital , Asansol. Besides this enquiry officer has also mentioned in his finding that the workman concerned had produced a Xerox copy of the Medical Certificate granted by the Superintendent, Sub- Divisional Hospital , Asansol .

13. The union has filed the Xerox copy of the letter ofthe Dy . CPM of Satgram Area enclosing a note -sheet No SAT/PER/Dismissal/93 dated 21-12-93 endorsed to the General Manager (Pers .) , ECL, Sanctoria dated 30th December , 1993. It is specifically mentioned in the note- sheet that " on perusal and subsequent conclusion it is found that Sri Ram Brichh Mahto absented from his duties from 17-11-92 to 29-3-93.i.e. 4 months 12 days since he was suffering from infective hepatitis with jaundice and the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Sub -Divisional Hospital , Asansol can be accepted be cause Sub- Divisional Hospital,Asansol is a State Govt . Hospital . Accordingly it was suggested that the case may please be forwardedto the G.M. (P) ECL, Sanctoria for his kind perusal and favourable consideration for reinstatement of Sri Mahto . Butunfortunately the said suggestion was out right turned downwithout any sufficient and reasonable ground . It has been observed by the Apex Court that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the delinquent workman should be given an opportunity to reform himself and to be loyal and disciplinary employee of the management.

10. Having gone through the entire facts , circumstances, enquiry proceeding along with its report I. find that the delinquent workman was admittedly absent from 17-11-92 to 29-3-93 i.e. about more than four months continuouslywithout any prior permission and information to the management . But then it is admitted fact that it is a simple case of unauthorized absence from duty during the relevantperiod is duly explained and the reasons of absence supported with medical certificate have been found to be sufficient and relevant. As such the absence from duty can't be said to be deliberate and with malafide intention rather it was under the compelling circumstances beyond the control of the workman concerned.

11. It was submitted by the union that a simple case ofunauthorized absence for four months , duly explained and supported by the medical certificate under the compelling circumstance can't be said to be a gross misconduct . The attention of the court was also drawn towards the provision of the Model Standing Order where the extreme punishment prescribed is dismissal as per the gravity of the misconduct and it was claimed that the extreme penalty can not be imposed upon the workman in such a minor case of alleged misconduct of an unauthorized absence. I find much force on the submission and argument ofthe union.

14. However, I am of the considered view that the punishment ofdismissal for an unauthorized absence for four months under the ccompelling circumstance and without any malafide intention is not just and proper rather it is too harsh a punishment which totally disproportionate to the alleged misconduct . Such a simple case should have been dealt with leniently by the management . As such the impugned order of dismissal of the concerned workman is hereby set aside and he is directed to be reinstated with the continuity of the service and all the consequential benefits. I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of strict warning not to repeat the same misconduct in future . It is further directed that the workman will be entitled to get only 50% of the back wages which will serve the ends of justic . Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED

hat let an "Award " be and the same is passed in favour of the workman concerned. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour , Govt. of India , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD: SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 46. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध 12. Admittedly the delinquent workman is an illiterate man of Scheduled Caste member and the weaker section of the society. He is no doubt financially weak and poor who has suffered a lot for about more than ten years and he had never been gaínfully employed anywhere during the period after his dismissal . It has been several time clearly observed by the different Hon'ble High Courts and the Apex Court as well that before imposing a punishment of dismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider the socio-economic background of the workman , his family background, length of service put in by the employee his past record and other surrounding circumstances including the nature of the misconduct and lastly the compelling circumstance to commit the misconduct . These are the relevant factors which must have to be kept in mind by the authority at the time of

3986G1/06-11 82

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007 /PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART I -SBC. 3( ii) ] में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.L- 22012/ 96/2003 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 03-02-2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

[सं. एल-22012/96/2003- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

SCHEDULE

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2006

"Whether the action of the Management of Ningha Colliery in reducing the basic and deduc- ting wages in respect of Bikash Choudhury, Mihir Mukherjee and Nandlal Thakur, Clerks is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to? "

S.O. 46. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum - Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Ningha Group of Mines of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , and their workman which was received by the Central Government on8-12-2006.

[No. L- 22012/96/2003 - IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT:

Onhaving received the Order No. L-22012/96/2003- IR (CM- II ), dated 03-02-2004 of the aforesaid reference fromthe Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference Case No. 13 of 2004 was registered on 16-02-04 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the date so fixed and to file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . Accordingly notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned. Sri P.K. Das, Advocate appeared in the court to represent the management. A letter of authority duly issued by the competent authority in his favour was also filed .

Presiding Officer : SRI MD. SARFARAZ KHAN

Reference No. 13 of 2004

PARTIES:

The Agent , Ningha Group of Mines of ECL, Ningha, Burdwan

Vrs.

The Secretary, ColllieryMazdoor Union (INTUC), Asansol , Burdwan .

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management

: Sri P.K. Das , Advocate

For the Union

: None

(Workman)

From perusal of the record it transpires that notices through the registered post with A/D letter were issued on 31-05-04 which was duly served on both the parties. It is further clear from the receipt of the A/D that the notice was received by the Secretary of the union on 3-6-04 and in token endorsed his signature on the A/D with date . This is the clear cut proof of the facts that the registered notice was properly and legally served upon the parties and the union got the knowledge about the appearance in the court on the date so fixed in order to pursue the dispute . It is further clear from the record that number of dates and adjournments were given for the appearance of the union in between 17-08-04 to 31-10-06 but to no effect. These all facts and circumstance go to show that the union in spite of best knowledge of the pendency of the dispute , does notwant to proceed with the case further . As such it is not advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served . Accordingly it is hereby : Coal

Industry

State

: West Bengal

ORDERED

Dated 31-10-2006

AWARD

that let a " No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of the award to the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16 , 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 47.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार रसियन एरोफलोट 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 157/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/30/2004- आई आर( सी-1 ) ]

83 Reservation Supervisor w.e.f. 31-12-2002 is just, proper and right? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to. "

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th December , 2006 S.O. 47. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 157/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, New Delhi - II , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Russian Aeroflot, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-12-2006.

[No. L- 11012/30/2004- IR (C- I) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, RAJENDRA BHA WAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEWDELHI

Presiding Officer : R.N. RAI .

I.D. No.157/2004

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Rajesh Sharma, S/o . Shri B.D. Sharma, R/o D - 1/ 163 , Lajpat Nagar , New Delhi .

VERSUS

The General Manager , M/s . Russian Aeroflot , Ground Floor, Tolstoy House, 15-17, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/30/ 2004- IR(C-I) Central Governmentdt. 6-10-2004 has referred the following points for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the action of M/ s . Russian Aeroflot in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Sharma , Theworkman applicant has filed statement ofclaim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that he is well qualified being B.A. (Hons. ) with Diploma in Computer and suiting the terms and conditions of the management besides passing the requisite tests and formalities had been appointed by the management w.e.f. 1-2-1990 as Computer Programmer on a monthly salary of Rs. 2000 per month, vide letter of appointment dated 31-01-1990 . It is needless to mention that besides issuance of letter of appointment dated 31-1-1990, the management had also executed a "service contract " with the workman incorporating therein the terms and conditions with which both the parties had beenbound. One such condition incorporated in the service contracts between the parties was that the workman was to retire after attaining the age of 60 years .

That the workman exhibiting his best abilities to the management put up his best performances to his superior officers during the period he remained employed with the management and that is the reason why the workman was. compensated with the annual increments and other perks and privileges . His last drawn salary was @ Rs.10705 per month and during his last tenure with the management he worked in the capacities of the reservations and computer works in the Reservation Department of the management . His employment was exclusively of a clerical nature and thus was covered within the definition of workman as defined in Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

That the management being an Airline primarily engaged in transportation of passengers and cargo to various countries is covered within the definition of industry as per the definition of ID Act, 1970.

That the nature of sincerity of the workman could verywell be imagined from the length of services which he has rendered with the management without giving any opportunity of complaint in any manner to any of the officials ofthe management . He has the credit of being the most efficient employee who takes the privilege in mentioning that at no occasions in the past he at all was called or questioned on any complaint or misconduct .

That even though the management being such a large organization was to run the system as per the mandates of law but the involvements of the management in various anti labour practices could very well be inferred from the fact that the employees used to be subjected to signing blank vouchers, papers and agreements under duress with the threats of termination in case anyone opted refusals thereto. The employees during their service tenure dared not to take bold steps of any kind of retaliations against such practices of the management and taking economic advantages thereof they continued getting papers signed from time to time as per their whims and fancies even though 84

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007 /PAUSA 16 , 1928

[PART IISEC. 3(ii) ] they themselves had entered and executed service contracts not only with the workman under reference but every other employees right at their inceptions of employment .

directions to the management to remain and practice within the bounds as the rules framed by Indian Legislature is also applicable to them . The management is to be reminded time and again that the law is not only to be confined within the statutory books but it is applicable to every citizens and organizations residing and working within the territorial jurisdiction of Indian Peninsula .

That merely on whims and fancies the workman was served with the office order whereby the management of M/ s . Russian Aeroflot terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 31-12-2002 . The said order seemed to be falling as a bolt on his head as he could never imagine that he at all couldbe subjected to such outright illegalities of termination office services and that to as a mere surprise . It looked as if the lawlessness had stepped in the administration of the management who believed only the practice of arbitrariness without a rule to be followed from their side.

Thatto instill faith and confidence in the mind of the workman and similarly situated employees , besides creating cordial relations in the industrial sector congenial for balance growth of the economy, it is expedient in the interest of justice and equity that appropriate directions are issued to the management to recall the order of termination and reinstate the workman granting him full back wages and continuity of service as the termination of services of the workman is patently illegal , arbitrary and malafide besides being against the mandatory provisions of ID Act, 1947 and the settled provision and principles of natural justice.

Thatthe order of termination has completely shattered that faith and confidence of the workman and it is the apt moment when this Hon'ble Tribunal/Court with appropriate directions create a feeling of complacency in the mind and heart of the workman so that he could work with honour and dignity in times to come .

Thatit seems that the management wanted to get rid of the workman at any cost overlooking the mandates and theprovisions of ID Act and the principles of natural justice as against the service contract entered upon between the parties herein right at the very inception of the employment ofthe workman, how could one dare to pass such an order of termination and that too abruptly putting the workman to face the vagaries of nature . The workman became speechless and had hardly anything to say as he felt as if he is only a small fry in the system against the giant management who did as per their illegal desires .

That it is not the workman whose services has been terminated illegally by the management, but such illegal and arbitrary conduct has taken the bread and butter from the mouths of his dependents as well who were solely dependent on the salary of the workman . The workman has remained unemployed ever since 31.12.2002 and has not succeeded in fetching any alternative employment. His economic conditions have become deplorable because of the illegal termination of his services which has brought complete break down of his family for which the management and management alone is responsible .

That the workman mustered strength to face the hard core- realities and kept making representation one after the another to the management with the hope that good senses may prevail upon them and resorting a midway after softening their heart , they may offer re - employment with all consequential benefits of full back wages and continuity of service but the moment never came and the workman had to face the acute calamities of termination for no fault on his behalf. He was left with no options than to take the recourse of rule of law and thus with hopes and ambitions he initiated the conciliation proceeding before the RLC( C) , Curzon Road, New Delhi - 110001. Even on the best attempt of the Conciliation Officer the management continued to show their reluctancy as a result thereof the conciliation proceedings ended up in failure leading to the present reference .

That the worman seeks re - employment and waiting for heavenly help in the nature of appropriate directions from this Hon'ble Tribunal/Court by way of setting aside the order of termination and passing of appropriate direction of reinstatement of the workman with all the consequential benefits of full back wages and continuity ofservice.

The respondent/management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present allegd industrial dispute is not maintainable and liable to be rejected without any further proceedings for the reason that Shri Rajesh Sharma was appointed for fixed term and he was discharged from his duties on the expiryofthe fixed period of contract of employment .

That as evident how could the management be permittedto formulate and practice a law unknown to the Indian Legislature and also the one against the principles of natural justice . The workman is all prepared to fight against such vandalism at the hands of the management so that any other employee may not fall victim in similar styled manner as has been done with the workman . The workman understands that taking such privilege of having a judicial battle with such large organization is not an easy affairs but none the less he has otherwise too no alternative . The facts as narrated above are self speaking to the effect thatthe workman requires justice by this Hon'ble Tribunal/ Court by way of setting the wrongs and issuing appropriate

That the present alleged industrial dispute is not maintainable and liable to be rejected for the reason that Shri Rajesh Sharma is not a workman within the meaning and definition of Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947.

4 85 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16 , 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

denied that Shri Rajesh Sharma has not given any opportunity to the managementto complain against his work and conduct. Shri Rajesh Sharma has to put strict proofof his averment and assertion in this corresponding . It is submitted that the management is a law - abiding establishment and never indulged in any kind of unfair labour practice. It is submitted that Shri Rajesh Sharma entered into the services contract with the management along with other employees after due negotiation and of his own accord and free will .

It is submitted that the service contract dated 1-1-2002 comes to an end automatically on 31-12-2002 therefore, it cannot be said that the management has committed any illegality; Shri Rajesh Sharma has to put strict proof of his averment and assertion .

That the present alleged industrial dispute is not maintaintable before your goodself and is liable to be dismissed at once because an industrial dispute cannot be saidto exit until unless a demand is made by Shri Rajesh Sharma on the management and it has been rejected by the management. In the present case , Shri Rajesh Sharma instead of following the settled procedure of law, mechanically submitted his statement of claim before the Ld. Conciliation Officer . Without raising any demand on the management prior to submitting his statement of claim before Conciliation Officer . Therefore , filing of statement of claim before the Ld . Conciliation Officer without first raising a demand and/or submitting a demand notice on the management is patently illgal based upon the settled law including that ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sindhu Resettlement .

That the present alleged industrial dispute is not maintainable and liable to be rejected for the reason that Shri Rajesh Sharma is gainfully employed since the day he has been discharged from his duties as per the terms and conditions of employment contract .

It is submitted that the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable for the reason that Shri Rajesh Sharma is not a workman . It is submitted that the action of the management was just, proper and legal . It is submitted that the services ofShri Rajesh Sharma had not come to an end abruptly. It is submitted that while signing the service contract it was very much in the knowledge of Shri Rajesh Sharma that his services will come to an end automatically on 31-12-2002 . Shri Rajesh Sharma has to put strict proof ofhis averment and assertion .

That the management reserves its right to submit additional reply, as and when required record will be produced before this Hon'ble Tribunal/Court. It is admitted that Shri Rajesh Sharma had submitted his statement of claim before the RLC(C) New Delhi . It is submitted that the conciliation proceedings resulted in failure due to non- cooperative and adamant attitude of Shri Rajesh Sharma. The management has acted in accordance with the established Indian Law.

It is submitted that as far as date of appointment, designation and rate of wages are concerned the same is matter of record and the management relies on their record . It is submitted that the said contract was for a period of one year and will automatically prolong till the management terminates it. That in accordance with the service contract if during the prolong period if an employee attain the age of 60 years , he is bound to be retired. That the service contract entered with all the employees become obsolete. In such circumstances, the management in the month of December, 2001 discussed with all the employees (including Shri Rajesh Sharma) of the establishment to change/alter/ modify certain clauses of the service contract. It is submitted that after due discussion all the employees of the establishment including Shri Rajesh Sharma entered into a new service contract superseding the old service contract w.e.f. 1-1-2002 for a period of one year . That after the completion of contract period Shri Rajesh Sharma was discharged simplicitor from his services.

Itissubmitted that the action of the management wasjust, proper and legal , therefore , no direction can be issued to the management to recall its order . Further Shri Rajesh Sharma is not entitled for any relief as claimed for the reason stated above in preliminary objections and reply onmerits.

It issubmitted that no direction can be issued to the management in view of submissions made above . It is submitted that Shri Rajesh Sharma has to put strict proof ofhis averment and assertion . It is submitted that the action ofthe management was just, proper and legal and in such circumstances, Shri Rajesh Sharma is not entitled for any relief as claimed. It is submitted that Shri Rajesh Sharma is not entitled for any relief as claimed .

It isspecifically denied that Shri Rajesh Sharmawas ever granted any special or any additional increment due tohis extra-ordinary performance. It is submitted that Shri Rajesh Sharma was an average employee and had received average increments . It is denied that Shri Rajesh Sharma's employment was exclusively of a clerical nature and thus was covered within the definition of workman as defined under section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947. In this context, it is submitted that Shri Rajesh Sharma was working as Reservation Supervisor and therefore , does not fall within the definition and meaning of workman under section 2 (s) of the ID Act , 1947

In view of above, it is most respectfully prayed to thisHon'ble Tribunal/Court that the present reference may please be answered in favour of the management and against Shri Rajesh Sharma.

Shri Rajesh Sharma has to put strict proof of his averment and action in this corresponding. It is specifically 86

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

to sign one year contractual appointment . This contractual appointment is not enforceable as it is void as opposed to public policy in view of section 23 of the Contract Act .

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.

Itwas further submitted that in the one year contract of appointment , he has been given designation as Reservation Supervisor, whereas there were no employee subordinate to him to supervise . He discharged Clercial nature of work even during his period of contract.

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 determination .

1. Whether the applicant is a workman u/ s 2 ( s ) of the ID Act, 1947 and this Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide this reference ?

2. Whether the contract of one year appointment entered into between the management and the workman is valid ?

3. Whether the workman is entitled to reinstatement and full back wages ?

IssueNo. 1.

It is the case of the management that the workman discharged duties in Supervisory and Managerial capacity. This plea has been taken by the management, so burden is on the management to prove this plea. The case of the workman is that his employment was exclusively ofClercial nature and he was not assigned any Administrative , Supervisory or Financial powers . The designation , Reservation Supervisor is a minomer . There is no post of Reservation Supervisor . He was the single person to do all sort of work. The management witness has admitted that he was dealing with 8 Sales Agents . The Sales Agents are not the employees of the respondents . So it cannot be said that he watched the work of the employees of the management . The management has not.filed any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the workman discharged his duties in Supervisory capacity . MW1 has specifically admitted in his cross examination that the assignments given to the workman under the work charge ofReservation Supervisor are as under:-

"to dealy with passengers , to change their reservations , to give them confirm seats , if any penalty to chargethe penalty from them, to deal with all 8 sales agents, planning and sales for the agents . "

It was submitted from the side of the workman that the respondent appointed the workman after passing the requisite test and complying with the other formalities w.e.f. 01-02-1990 as Computer Programmer on monthly salary of Rs . 2000. Keeping in view the performance and skill of the workman, the workman was given annual increments and other perks and privileges . His last drawn salary was Rs . 10, 750 per month. The workman performed the duties in the capacity of Reservation and Computer work in the Reservation Department of the management . His employment was exclusively of Clercial nature and thus was covered with the definition of workman as defined in the ID Act, 1947 .

MW1 has described the duty assigned to the workman. There were no duties of supervisory nature . He dealt with 8 sales agent . He was not supervisor even of the sales agents . He was dealing hands of the sales agents and he was incharge of dealing with passengers, change their reservation, confirmation and penalty. Such duties are not duties supervisory in nature .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman that no duty chart or roaster has been filed by the management . The management has not filed any document ofanypost, subordinate to this workman . The management witnesshas categorically admitted.

Theworkmanhas filed photocopy of his appointment letter dated 1-2-1990, W1 /2 . This letter has been admitted bythemanagement. The workman has been given regular appointment from 1-2-1990 and his retirement age in his appointment letter has been mentioned as 60 years . So he is regular employee of the management . The management hasissued certificate dated 7-3-2002 and this workman has beenmentioned as a permanent employee of the Aeroflot, Russian Airlines since 1-2-1990 . This proves that the workman has worked continuously for 12 years under the management as a regular employee . The services of the workman has been terminated by the management w.e.f. 31-12-2002 in accordance with the terms of employment dated 1-1-2002 .

It was submitted from the side of the management that he was coerced by the management to sign one year contractual appointment on 1-1-2002 . It was stated that the workman lacked bargaining capacity. He was constrained

"The workman was having leave sanctioning powers : to his juniors . I am in knowledge that the workman had sanctioned leave to his junior. Our Office Attendant, Shri Chandran was sanctioned leave by the workman. I do not remember the month and year when the workman had sanctioned the leave to Shri Chandran . I have not seen with my eyes the said letter of sanction . If available , I can bring the same, if asked by the Court . Mr. Kunju Mon is another employee whom the workman has sanctioned leave .

87 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का त्तराजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

I againdo not remember the day, month and year when the said leave was sanctioned. I can trace the same later if required."

Itwas submitted that he was a supervisor . He may be at the lower straita in hierarchy. The words supervisor always implies supervision work and supervision work means supervising the work of some other subordinate to the supervisor . The respondents have not shown any workman working under the supervision of this workman. They have given him high sounding designation of supervisor whereas his work was to supervise the Reservation Counter . He was also on the Reservation Counter, though he dealt with other 8 Sales Agents .

"I do not know whether the workman was endowed with any financial powers . The workman was dealing with 8 sales agents . He had the power of disciplinary action against them . I do not know whether the workman fhad ever taken any disciplinary actions against the said 8 sales agents . I am not in knowledge whether the workman had initiated any disciplinary actions against any office subordinate . The last duty which the workman performed was working as Reservation Supervisor ."

The claimant has been all along discharging mainly clercial work while as Reservation Supervisor . He has not been even incidently given supervisory nature of work. So he has not discharged even any incidental or accessory nature of managerial and supervisory function . He has all along been performing duties of clercial nature of job and he has been given real and substantial employment for that work only. He has not been assigned any work which partakes of the nature of managerial or supervisory function. The purpose of his employment was substantially clerical .

The management has mentioned leaves sanctioned to Shri Chandrama and disciplinary order passed. No document has been filed to show that the workman has ever anctioned leave to any of the employees . No paper has been filed to show that the workman has taken disciplinary action against any subordinate employee. MW1 has stated that he sanctioned leave and he took disciplinary action but he has not even said date, month and the year of the action . Any action is taken on paper. There must be written order either sanctioned leave or taking any disciplinary action. The management should have filed those verydocuments in this Tribunal . No such documents have been filed. MW1 has given absolute false evidence . Nodocument has been filed regarding any sanctioning of leave or regarding taking of any disciplinary action .

It was submitted from the side of the claimant that primary, basic and dominant nature of duties for which a person is employed disclose whether he is discharging managerial or supervisory work . The high sounding nomenclature of Staff Officer cannot make clercial work , work of a supervisory or managerial nature , if he has not been entrusted with the same .

The workmanwas initially Computer Programmer and then he was given high nomenclature of Reservation Supervisor whereas he supervised the Reservation Counter only.His services are governed by his appointment of 1990 . The contract of appointment for one year is illegal and inoperative . He has been given designation of Reservation Supervisor in one year agreement of appointment . This contract ofappointment is illegal and void being opposed by public policy and lacking free consent of the workman.

In(1985) 3 SCC 371 it has been held that the nature of the work of a workman in to be ascertained from the dominant nature of duties performed by him and not by nomenclature . In view of this judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claimant is a workman .

The real tests for ascertaining the status and function of employee are the primary , basic or dominant nature of duties . The words managerial or supervisory have to be understood in their proper connotation and their mere use cannot be detracted from the truth . On considering the documents referred to above I find that he has not been evenincidentally asked to perform the duties of managerial or supervisory nature .

MW1 has stated that the workman has the powerto sanction leave and to deal with 8 Sales Agents . It has not been pointed out what disciplinary action the workman took as a Supervisor and what were his duty as a Supervisor . He was supervisor only at Reservation Counter . Dealing with Sales Agents cannot be said to be a supervisory work .

The workman has all along discharged duties of clerical nature . He is Computer Programmer and clerk and not a supervisor. This Court has jurisdiction to decide his case. There is only oral evidence of sanctioned leave but no such documents have been filed . So mere on the basis of oral evidence it cannot be said that leave has been sanctioned by this workman. The sanction letter is the only evidence and it cannot be replaced and relied upon by oral evidence . No document has been produced. Ther is no incident of any disciplinary actions of the workman . On perusal of the record it becomes obvious that the workman initially worked as a Computer Programmer and thereafter as Clerk .

The law citedby the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case . This issue is decided accordingly.

It has been seld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mrs. Bnnett Colman that a supervisor may occupy a lower position in the organization chart of companywherein recending order may be CMD, MD,GMS , Dy . Manager , Managers , Administrative Officer and Supervisors etc.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

Issue No. 2 :

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman entered into a contract as per paper No. MW1/4 . No date has been mentioned in this agreement. Signature of the workman has been obtained but this document does not contain any date .

ofthis contract. Such agreement amounts to unfair labour practiceunder the ID Act, 1947. A regular employee cannot be converted into a fixed term appointee . Contract of January, 2002 lacks free consent so it is not valid and it is not operative . The management cannot terminate the services of the workman on the basis of this contract. It is opposed to public policy.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he was coerced to sign this contract. Even the terms and conditions and the date of the contract has not been mentioned either by the management or by the workman.

Contract of one year appointment breaking a regular employee of 12 year is not a legal contract and it confers no power on the management to terminate the services of the workman. It is a nullity and void deed in the eye of law and in view of the public policy of the Indian Government.

It was submitted that the signature of the workman was obtained on blank paper and thereafter contract of one year agreement was prepared stealthily by the management. From the perusal of the agreement of January , 2002 it transpires that there is signature only on the end of the last page . There is no designation of the workman. There is nodate given by the workman . It appears that the management has procured the signature of the workman on a blank paper . On 07-03-2002 a certificate has been issued that he is a permanent employee of the management.

Itwas further submitted that the workman was given permanent appointment since 1-2-1990 . Certificate has been issued by the GM on 7-3-2002 . It becomes quite obvious that the workman was given regular appointment on 1-2-1990 and certificate was issued to him on 7-3-2002 that he is a permanent employee of the management since 1-2-1990 . The respondents have issued him appointment letter on 31-1-1990 . It has been mentioned in the appointment letter that he was appointed as Computer Programmer w.e.f. 1-2-1990 on a montly salary Rs . 2000/- Thus, initially the workman was given regular appointment in February , 1990. WW 1/2 is the service contract entered into between the management and Rajesh Sharma dated 1-2-1990 . It has been mentioned in this service contract that the age of his retirement would be 60 years . He would be entitled to gratuity and PF also .

Itwas submitted that the workman has been thrown outof employment on whims and fancies of the mangement and his sincere and honest representation has not been considered. It was a malafide effort on the part of the management to obtain unfair contract of one year appointment from the workman and to throw him out of employment. The one year contract of appointment is illegal and void. Thetermination order is illegal .

Issue No.3:

From the above it becomes quite clear that the management engaged the workman on 1-2-1990 as Computer programmer on the basis of regular selection . He was issued appointment letter . The appointment letter contains terms and conditions of his appointment . His age of superannuation has been mentioned as 60 years . The workman has worked till 2000 as Computer Programmer .

It becomes quite obvious from the decisions of the Issue Nos . 1 & 2 that the services of the workman have been illegally terminated on contract of one year appointment. Such as illegal contract cannot be enforced and the management gets no right from a void contract .

It was submitted that the management got contract of one year appointment signed by the workman under pressure and coercion . The workman was not in a bargaining position . So he signed the contract without his willingness and free consent . The employee appointed on a permanent basis will not willfully break his entire tenure of service and enter into contractual appointment of one year .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman has not taken specific plea in his claim thathe is out of employment and he sought employment at several places but he could not get the job . In prayer clause only he has sought re - employment with full back wages and all the consequential benefits .

It was submitted that MW1 has deposed that he has a telephonic discussion with the workman and the workman disclosed about his engagement with Hotel Mourya Sheraton. The phone call was made by the workman in the office of MW1 . He has also deposed that he has no documentary evidence . This alleged conversation has not been refutedby the workman in cross examination ofMW1 . Ithas not been even suggested that telephonic discussion did not take place . It has also not been suggested that the workman did not disclose about his engagement with Hotel Mourya Sheraton .

It was further submitted that such agreements lack free consent and such instruments are irreconcilable . The workman was constrained to sign this contract in view of his unemployment problem and economic condition . The respondents assured him that his services would be continued and the contract would not be given as an impediment of his service . In normal course no employee will enter into one year of employment after 10 or 12 year service . In that case he will forfeit his gratuity and other benefits arising out of such a contract . Such a contract is void in view of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the management cannot terminate his services on the basis 89 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

PresidingOfficer : R. N. RAI .

I.D. No. 65/2002

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Ram Prasad & Shri Raja Ram, Ss./o . Sh. BhagwanDeen

C/o. All India CPWD Employees Union, Lodi Colony,

NewDelhi -110003.

Versus

In case there is such deposition by any witness it should be denied emphatically. There is no denial of the telephonic conversation with the workman and his engagement inHotel Morya Sheraton. The management might notbe in a position to obtain documents regarding engagement of the workman . The workman has not taken a definite plea that he was out of employment in his claim. So in the facts and circumstances of the case he is entitled to get 50 % back wages and other consequential benefits. The workman is entitled to be reinstated along with 50% back wages and other consequential benefits and continuity of service.

The Executive Engineer, CPWD " U " Division , CGO Complex, New Delhi- 110003.

The reference is replied thus:-

AWARD

The Ministry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/ 223/2001 - IR (CM- II) Central Governmentdt. 8-8-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

The action of M/ s . Russian Aeroflot in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Sharma, Reservation Supervisor w.e.f. 31-12-2002 is niether just nor proper nor right . The management is directed to reinstate the workman w.e.f. 31-12-2002 along with 50 % back wages and other consequential benefits and continuity of service within one month from the date of the publication of the award.

Award is given accordingly.

R.N.RAI , Presiding Officer

Dated: 7-12-2006 .

"Whether the action of the management in not regularizing the services of S/Shri Ram Prasad and Shri Raja Ram, as per the DOPT circular and continuing them on casual basis indefinitely is fair, just and reasonable ? If not, to what benefit and relief the workers are entitled to . " नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर , 2006

The workman applicants have filed claim statement . In the claim statement they have stated that Shri Ram Prasad (Applicant No. 1) has been working as Fitter on casual basis (on work order) since 2-1-1989 at CGO Complex and presently under the Executive Engineer "U"Division , CPWD, New Delhi .

That Shri Raja Ram (Applicant No.2) has been working as Beldar on casual basis (on work order) since 1-9-1989 at CGO Complex and presently under the Executive Engineer "U " Division, CPWD, New Delhi .

का.आ. 48. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को12-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/223/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

That the applicants are covered under the definition of "workman " as defined under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act, 1947 (hereinafter stated as " The Act ") .

New Delhi , the 12th December, 2006

That theExecutive Engineer "U " Division, CPWD, New Delhi is employer as per the definition u/s 2 (g ) of "The Act".

S.O. 48. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD , 'U' Division and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-12-2006 .

[No.L-42012/223/2001 - IR (CM- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

That the CPWD is an Industry as defined under Section2 (j ) of the act. The applicants have been employed on the work of maintenance of the buildings at CGO Complex which is a work of permanent nature . The applicants have not been regularized so far , though they have beenworking on the job of permanent nature for the lastmore than 11 years , though the workers junior to the applicants have already been regularized.

ANNEXURE

That the act of the employer of keeping these workers un- regularized and thereby keeping them deprived from the status and a privilege of permanent workmen are exploratory, and is an act of unfair labour practice as BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, NEW DELHI

3986G1/06-12 90

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) mentioned in the Vth Schedule of the Act . The act of committing unfair labour practice is prohibited under Section 25T of the ID Act, 1947 and is punishable as per the provision of the Section 25 U of the ID Act , 1947.

question of their regularization in the department . Further the job is also not of perennial nature . The applicants are not departmental daily rated workmen and therefore admission of regularization of service of their juniors does not arise .

Thatthe efforts made by the applicants and the union remained fruitless as such the matter was raised before the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) and due to the unreasonable attitude of the employer resulted in the failure of conciliation proceedings .

That the contents of para 8 of the application are not admitted and are vehemently denied . As stated above the applicants are not workmen and are only contractors to whom work was awarded on contract .

That the stand taken by the employer in not treating the applicants as workmen is totally baseless and aimed at hoodwinking the facts .

That the contents of para 9 of the application is legal in nature . However , the same will not apply in the instant case in view of what has been stated above . That the contents of para 10 of the application that the matter was raised before the RLC (C) by the applicants and the union ismatter ofrecord. The contents of para 11 are not admitted and are denied .

That the practice of not regularizing the workmen has not left any other alternative with the workmen and the union but to raise dispute before the Hon'ble Forum. That the copies of the documents and proceedings before the Conciliation Officer are enclosed and be treated as part of the evidence in support of the claim of the applicants . The detail of amount payable to the applicants and not yet paid is also enclosed.

That the applicants herein as stated above are not workmencoming under the definition of workmen as defined under the ID Act , 1947. Hence the grievances which the applicants defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act andtherefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant application.

The respondent/ management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the applicants are not workmen as defined u/s. 2( s ) of the ID Act, 1947 and are only contractor who work on work order /contract basis to execute a specific work on day to day basis on a specific sum as determined by the competent authority and as per terms and conditions as laid down in work order.

That the contents of para 13 of the application are not admitted. It is submitted that the applicants have already been paid, whatever have been due to them as per the rate approved by the competent authority for performing the specificjob .

That this Hon 'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the above mentioned claim application as the applicants are not workmen within the definition of Section 2( s) of the IDAct, 1947 and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone .

That the contents of the prayed clause are not admitted and are denied . The applicants are not entitled to regularization or to have any consequential benefits as the applicants are not workmen as defined under the ID Act, 1947 and are merely contractors who execute specific work on work order basis on a specified sum . It is therefore , submitted that the claim application may be dismissed with heavy costs.

That the contents of paras 1 & 2 of the application that Shri Ram Prasad (Applicant No. 1 ) has been working as Fitter on casual basis (on work order ) since 2-01-1989 and Shri Raja Ram (Applicant No. 2) has been working as Beldar on casual basis ( on work order ) since 1-9-1989 at CGO Complex are denied for want of knowledge .

The workmen applicants have rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

That it is respectfully submitted that the respondent division came into force with effect from 14-2-1996 only. That the applicant Nos . 1 & 2 were given work order to carry out day to day complaints . That they are only contractors for the department and not workmen .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

That the contents of para 3 of the claim application are denied and the contents of preliminary submission No. 1 of the written statement are reiterated in reply.

That the contents of para 6 of the claim application arc denied . It is submitted that they are given work on work order/ contract basis .

That the contents of para 7 of the application are not admitted as stated. The applicants are not workmen and are only contractors for the department. Hence , there is no

Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen that the workmen were not contractors as alleged by the management . They discharged their duties as Muster Roll Employees . B - 11 is an admitted document. Shri Ram Prasad has been shown as Fitter engaged since 2-1-1989 . Shri Raja Ram has been shown as Beldar engaged since 1-9-1989 . They have been shown as on rolls of the management .

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workmen of the benefits thereunder. If the contract is found not genuine but mere camouflage the contract workers shall be treated as employees of the Principal Employer who shall direct to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned .

The workmen as discussed above are not independent contractors . There is no contract agreement . They have been working for the management and under the direction and control ofthe management . So they may be treated as Daily Wager or Muster Roll Workers .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that in view of 2006 (4) Scale that merely because of temporary employee or casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the terms 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 original appointment was not made by following the due process of selection.

Itwas submitted that these workmen have not been selected through a due process of recruitment as per the policy ofCPWD so these workmen cannot be regularized in view of the judgment referred to above of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia.

Shri Ram Prasad has filed certificate dated 7-6-1994 issued by the Assistant Engineer. It has been mentioned therein that this workman has been working as Fitter in CPWD since January, 1991. This letter has been issued on 7-6-1994 which proves the fact that the workman isat worst dailywager performing duties of Fitter regularly. The management has admitted that Shri Raja Ram has worked for 26 days in 9/89, 10/89, 11/89 & 12/89 . This is also a copy of photocopy filed by the workman and admitted bythe management and he has worked for 26 days in all the months. Shri Raja Ram has further filed B -27 regarding his working days and working period of 1991 and 1992. Thisphotocopy has been admitted by the management. It has also been stated herein that he has worked on the post of Beldar. The workman has filed B - 28 . Photocopy of certificate issued by the management. This paper is also admitted . Shri Ram Prasad has been engaged as Fitter and Shri Raja Ram as Beldar . They have been shown as Muster RollEmployees along with 5 other employees . The Assistant Engineer has made the request vide his letter dated 1-12-1994 to regularize the muster roll employees. They have not been regularized so far. B-31 also proves the fact that these two workmen have been engaged since 2-1-1989 and 1-9-1989 respectively. B - 32 is a letter of Additional Director, CPWD . Its copy has been issued to Assistant Engineer and others and it has been specifically reiterated that there is complete ban for the engagement of workmen on work orders . So CPWD has banned the engagement of workmen on the work order basis. These documents go a long way to prove that these workmen are not the work order employees . They have been shown as Beldar and Fitter on Muster Roll basis .

In 2006 (4) Scale it has been held that in case a workman is continued to work beyond 10 years and without the orders ofthe Court in such matters management should consider the feasibility of regularization. These workmen have been engaged since 1989 and they performed 10 years duties in 1999. In view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court they should have been regularized in 1999 itself. No such endeavour to regularize the workmen has beenmade by the management even at the instance of various letters sent to the Head of Department .

Itwas further submitted that it has been held by Hon 'ble Apex Court that Government is at liberty to make temporary appointments and Daily Wager appointments but there must be some end to such employment . The workmen have worked for almost 17 years and they have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the management. They will not be eligible for afresh appointment in view of the age bar .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management thatthese two workmen were contractors and not workmen. It is settled law that in cases where Principal Employer retained control over the workmen and he is a master to decidethat what is to be done and what is not to be done . In such cases the contract is a contract of service and not contract for service . The workman worked as Fitter and Beldar under the control and supervision of the management . No agreement of contract has been filed. The management controlled the performances of these workmen and they decided the manner in which the work is to be done.These workmen are still working so there is contract of service between the workmen and the employer. These workmen are not independent contractors . Contract has beendefined as agreement for a given result. In this case there is no agreement of contract between the workmen and the management and no result has been achieved except day to day service of the workmen . Wages have beenpaidto them monthly.

It was submitted from the side of the management that these workmen have not been recruited through recruitment process. It is prerogative of the Government to create posts. Posts have not been created . The workmen have been working for 17 years . It cannot be said that regular work is taken from them against no post . Post is created considering the regular nature of work . These workmen have been discharging regular and continuous nature of work. They have been given the designation of Fitter and Beldar. There should not be malafide exercise of anyprerogative.

Itwas submitted from the side the management that thisHon'ble Court has no jurisdiction. In Steel Authority ofIndia, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court of India has held that if contract is mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance 92

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

There is no constitutional scheme to keep workmen on temporary, adhoc and muster roll basis life time. The management is not following recruitment procedure in order to deprive these workmen of the benefits of regular employment. The management is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Fair pay is expected from them . They should have given regular employment to these workmen.

The management is not justified in keeping these workmen on casual basis indefinitely. Such practice is not fair one . The statutory provision of ID Act, 1947 are attracted . Giving casual and temporary appointments again and again constitutes unfair labour practice . The management has been adhering unscrupulously to such unfair labour practice . The workmen deserve regularization from the date of the award .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action ofthe management in not regularizing the services of S/Shri Ram Prasad and Shri Raja Ram, as per the DOPT circular and continuing them on casual basis indefinitely is neither fair nor just nor reasonable . The management is directed to regularize the workmen within two months from the date of publication of the award.

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 07-11-2006.

R. N. RAI, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ 49.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डब्ल्यू डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -42012/267/2002- आई आर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th December , 2006

S.O. 49. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , No. 2 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central PublicWorks Department , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 12-12-2006.

[No. L-42012/267/2002 - IR (CM- II)]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N.RAI ID.No. 69/2003 In the Matter of:

TheGeneral Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan , 4823, Balbir Nagar Extension , Gali No. 13 , Shahdara , Delhi - 110032

Versus.

TheDirector General (Works) , CentralWorks Public Department, Nirman Bhawan (Electrical Divn . No. 11), CPWD, IARI Pusa, NewDelhi -110011 .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/267/ 2002- IR (CM - II ) Central Governmentdt . 14-5-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder: ---

"Whether the non- regularisation of the services of the claimant workman by the management of the Director General (Works ) CPWD (Electrical Divn . No. 11 , IARI , Pusa), New Delhi from the date of his initial appointment is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that the workman was directed to file rejoinder on 28-2-2005 . He has not filed rejoinder till today. Opportunity for filing rejoinder has been closed . The workman has not filed any evidence in support of his claim statement .

The reference is replied thus :-

The non- regularisation of the services ofthe claimant workman by the management of the Director General (Works), CPWD (Electrical Divn . No. 11 , IARI , Pusa) , New Delhi from the date of his initial appointment is just, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 6-12-2006.

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 12 दिसम्बर, 2006

का.आ 50.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 171/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/ 179/2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th December , 2006 S.O. 50. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 171 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Pubjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 8-12-2006 .

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[No. L-12011/179/2002-IR (B - II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR-COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PRESIDING OFFICER I.D. NO.171 /2002

Ref.No.L- 12011/ 179/2002- IR(B - II) Dt. 11-12-02

BETWEEN

The President Punjab National Bank Workers Union Central Office, 94, MG Marg, Lucknow (U.P. )

AND

The Zonal Manager Punjab National Bank Zonal Office, Lucknow (U.P. )

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referredthe followingdispute vide No. L- 12011 /179/ 2002- IR (B - II ) Dated 11-12- .2002 for adjudication to the PresidingOfficer, CGIT-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow:

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in imposing the punishment of bringing down the basic pay to one lower stage for one year w.e. f. 5-8-2000 and withholding wages for suspension period- except the subsistance allowance already paid in respect of Sri K.C. Lal Srivastava is legal and justified ? if not, what relief is he entitled to?"

This is admitted fact that while officiating -as head cashier at branch office, Civil Lines, Allahabad, shortage of Rs . One lakh was found in respect of which FIR was lodged and videorder dt. 18-12-87 the workman was placed under suspension. On the basis of said FIR a Criminal case no .4856 of 1994 started and the Criminal court vide order/ judgementdt. 24-2-95 acquitted the workman from charge u/s 409 IPC . Subsequently, after acquittal from the court suspension orders of Sri Srivastava was withdrawn as on 12-6-96 concerned workman joined his duties at Naini branch oftheBarik at Allahabad. This is also not disputed that para 19.3(c) of the Bipartite Settlement provides that if the employees is acquitted it shall be open to the bank to proceed against him departmentally under the provisions setout in clause 199.11 and 19.12 ofthe Bipartite settlement. Accordingly Sri Srivastava was served with the charge sheetdt. 24-5-96 whereby it was alleged that the missing of Rs.1 lakh on 18-12-87 from his custody constituted an act ofgross misconduct within para 19.5(j ) of the Bipartite settlement and he was advised to submit his reply . Sri Srivastava submitted his reply dt . 27-6-97 whereby he denied the allegations and the Disciplinary Authority thereafter ordered departmental enquiry into the allegations made against him vide charge sheet dated 24-5-96. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and a copy of the enquiry report was also forwarded to Sri Srivastava to submit his reply thereof. This is also admitted fact that Disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed punishment of bringing down in the scale of pay by one stage for a period ofone years upon Shri Srivastava vide show cause notice dt. 12-7-2000. The Disciplinary Authority further directed that Sri Srivastava would not be entitled to any wages for the period of his suspension period except for what has been paid to him by way of subsistance allowance . Sri Srivastava. however, has not preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement.

It is admitted fact that on 5-8-2000 disciplinary authority of the bank passed following punishment order in respect of misconduct;

"Sri KCL Srivastava . C/CPO: Naini . Allahabad was served with a charge sheetdt. 24-5-96. It was alleged that a sum of Rs . one lakh was found missing from his custody due tohis negligence while working at BO: Civil Lines , Allahabad.

His reply dt. 27-6-96 to the above charge sheet was not found satisfactory and an Enquiry was instituted vide order dt. 24-9-96 to look into the truth of charge levelled against Sri Srivastava vide charge sheet dt . 24-5-96 as per theprovisions of the Bipartite Settlement .

TheEnquiry Officer has held the charges against Sri Srivastava as contained in the charge sheet dt. 24-5-96 as proved. Acopy of the report of Enquiry Officer was sent to Sri Srivastava for his submissions, if any on the same.The points raised in the submissions of Sri Srivastava vide letterdt. 12-6-2000 were considered by me and a show cause was issued vide order dt. 12-7-2000 proposing 94

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] punishment of bringing down the basic pay of Sri Srivastava by two stages in the scale of pay for a period of two years in terms of para 19.6 (c) of Bipartite Settlement as amended upto date . He was also offered a personal hearing inmyoffice.

Sri KCL Srivastava appeared before me on 31-7-2000 in my office along with his defence representative . In the personal hearing , Sri Srivastava along with his defence representative has mainly raised the following points-

The worker's allegations is that the enquiry officer has not afforded full opportunity to defend his case to the concerned workman. It is also submitted that during the course ofenquiry management could not prove the charge ofnegligence against the concerned workman by cogent evidence. Enquiry Officer has not applied his mind on evidence available on record only on the basis of assumption proved the charges against the workman . It is also alleged that the findings of the enquiry officer is illegal and perverse.

---Charge of negligence was nowhere proved .

Not even a single customer was present in the bank when bundle of Rs . 100 was missing .

Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the punishing authority and the enquiry officer has wrongly found the charges proved against the concerned workman .

-The money was missed because of the theft made by an unknown person , perhaps some body from among staff of the branch .

-Prior to this unfortunate incident , he was never been charged of any such deed which could have damaged his clean image in 22 years of service .

Indian Bankers Association Circular No. PD/CIR/76/ D/M/384dt. 11-6-93 regarding RELEASE OF INCREMENTS FOR THE PERIOD UNDER SUSPENSION UPON REINSTATEMENT reads as under "please refer to our Circular No. PD/CIR/ 76/B /M/376 dated 13-6-92 advising thedecision of the Personnel Committee regarding release of increments for the period under suspension . upon reinstatement. " The member banks were advised as under :

"The Disciplinary Authority should invariably specify while passing orders regarding the punishment, as to whether the increment/s for the period of suspension are to be released or withheld . If the order is silent in this regard then it should be construed that increment/s for the fallen due during the period of the suspension are to be released from the date of suspension is lifted. " -While taking final decision, his harassment in police custody and irreparable loss in life may be kept in mind . I have considered the submissions made by Sri KCL Srivastava during his personal hearing and also as given by him vide his letter dtd . 31-7-2000 and find that the bundle of Rs . 100 denomination of note was missed from his custody for which he cannot hold anybody else responsible . No body can deny that it was negligence on the part of Sri Srivastava . His contention that the money was missed because of the theft by unknown person perhaps among the staff members is also hypothetical and cannot be substantiated as there is no evidence . I also do not agree with his contention that he was harassed by the bank on this incident as steps taken by the bank were in accordance with the provisions . The cash amounting to one lakh was certainly lost on account of his negligence . I therefore conclude that it was on account of the negligence of Sri Srivastava that the bank was put to loss of Rs . one lakh in the shape of cash shortage for which I hold Sri KCL Srivastava guilty.

Pursuant to the above decision . many banks have made enquiries with I.B.A. whether past cases have to be reopended and fixation of pay done accordingly. The personnel committee of the Association at its meeting held on 20-5-93 decided as under " Penalities awarded on or after 13-6-92 (date of issue of I.B.A. Circular No. PD/CIR/ 76/B/M/376) should be interpreted in terms of clarifications givenby the personnel committee . Decisions taken on past cases (penalties awarded prior to 13th June 1992) as per the prevalent practice in the respective banks should not be reopened for practical considerations ."

However, the submission of Sri Srivastava that his image in the service for the past 35 years was clear barring this incident is the point which deserves review of my proposed order of punishment . I am therefore inclined to take a lenient view in his case .

From a perusal of the Penalties provided under the rules it is clear that withholding of wages during the period of suspension has not been proved as punishment, as such the withholding of wages during the period of suspension by way of punishment is also illegal, unjust and liable to be quashed.

I , therefore , order that the basic pay of Sri Srivastava be brought down to one lower stage in the scale of pay for one ycar without cumulative effect in terms of para 19.6(c) ofBipartite Settlement dtd. 19-10-66 duly amended upto date instead of bringing down his basic pay by two stages in the scale of pay for period of two years as proposed vide my order dtd. 12-7-2000.

He will also not be entitled to any wages for the period of suspension except to what has been paid/payable to him in the shape of subsistance allowance .

I order accondingly. "

Therefore, the orders regarding withholding of wages the period of suspension is imaginary and baseless . As a matter of argument it is submitted that the wages of the period of suspension can only be withheld where the employee was under suspension at the time of imposing of punishment or he was kept under suspension during the period of Enquiry pertaining to the charge sheet under suspension during the period of enquiry pertaining भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष16 , 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

to the charge sheet under which the punishment was awarded.

The opposite party has not passed any specific order regarding withholding of increments in the punishment order dtd . 5-8-2000 . No opportunity of any kind was given tothe concerned workman to defend himself against orders withholding altogether eight annual graded increments i.e. annual graded increments dues as on 1st Jan. 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1994, 1995, 1996. As such as per Bipartite Settlement of 1983 circular dated 11-6-93 the concerned workman was entitled to receive annual graded increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement and thereafter from the opposite party under law.

With effect from 12-6-96 the concerned warkman is getting full pay without adding the annual graded increments for the period of suspension (i.e. annual graded increments due as on 1st Jan. , of 1989 , 1990, 1991, 1992 , 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 which he was entitled to receive in his pay as per Bipartite Settlement dt . 8-9-83 and notionally also as per service conditions in bank as per P.D. Circular No. 1241 dtd. 7-9-90. The workman was entitled to full back wages also as he was exonerated of the charges u/s 409 of IPC by the 1st Addl . Chief Judicial Magistrate and the reinstatement order was silent on the issue ofback wages.

The competent authority has not passed any specific order regardingthe holding of increments of the period of suspension in the punishment order dtd. 5-8-2000 . No opportunity of any kind was given to the concerned workman to defend himself against orders, if any such order was passed withholding altogether eight annual graded increments i . e . annual graded increments due as on 1st Jan. 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 , 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996. As per Bipartite Settlement dtd . 8-9-93 . Circular dtd. 11-6-93 the concerned workman was entitled to receive annual graded increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement and thereafter (atleast notionally) from the opposite party under law .

Workman has accordingly prayed for quashing the punishment order in the first place and requested for the wages the period of suspension along with all annual graded increments due in the period of suspension.

The opposite party has denied the allegations of the workman and has submitted that the enquiry officer conducted the departmental enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Bipartite Settlements during which all reasonable opportunity were afforded to his defence representative to defend him . Enquiry Officer considered all material on record and submitted his report after considering the entire material before him. Thereafter Enquiry Officer submitted his report dtd. 29-1-99 to the disciplinary authority . Disciplinary authority after taking into consideration the entire material on the record, submissions made during the personal hearing as well as

95 inthe representation did. 31-7-2000 and also having regard to the gravity of allegations proved against him inflicted punishment vide order dtd. 5-8-2000 which is perfect legal , just and in accordance with the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. So for as period spend during suspension is concerned, it is submitted by the opposite party that it was considered by the disciplinary authority at the time of passing of final order and according to punshment order theworker was not entitled any wages during the period of suspension except of subsistance allowance . It is also submitted that worker has not preferred any appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority dtd . 5-8-2000 . It is submitted that under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement, aworkman is entitled for release of stagination increment afterhe stagnate at the maximum pay for period of 3 years . Keeping in viewthe order passed dtd . 5-8-2000 Sri Srivastava isnot entitled to release of first stagnation increment w.e.f. Jan, 2002 but is entitled to the same w.e.f. 1-1-03 . Sri Srivastava has been inflicted only one punishment vide order dt . 5-8-2000 and non payment of wages during the periodof suspension as well as defermation of stagnation are only the consequence of the order of the punishment . The order passed by the disciplinary authority is legal , just and in accordance with the provision of Bipartite Settlement. It has therefore , been prayed that the Tribunal may hold that the order dtd . 5-8-2000 passed by the disciplinary authority is legal and proper and that Sri Srivastava is not entitled to any wages for the period he remained absent, but for the amount already received by . him by way of subsistance allowance.

After hearing and perusing the pleadings the issue is framed on 28-4-03 the first issue was pertaining to the departmental enquiry which is as follows:

(1) " क्या विभागीय जांच न्याय के नैसर्गिकः सिद्धांतों के अनुसार बाई पारटाइट सैटलमेंट के प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत नहीं की गई जैसा वादोन्तर के पैरा 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 व 18 में वर्णित है?"

The said issue No. 1 is decided against the worker on 14-4-04 . Remaining issue are to be decided as follows:-

(2) " क्या अनुशासनिक अधिकारी द्वारा कर्मचारी के विधिक अनुरोध पर विचारण किये बिना दण्ड दिया गया जैसा कि दावे में वर्णित है ? "

(3) " क्या बाई- पारटाइट सैटलमेंट के अंतर्गत एक आरोप पर एक से ज्यादा दण्ड नहीं दिया जा सकता , और कर्मचारी को एक से ज्यादा आरोप से दण्डित किया गया है ? " (4 ) " क्या कर्मचारी मुअत्तिली की अवधि के इंक्रीमेट पाने का अधिकारी है जैसा कि कर्मचारी का कथन है ? ".

(5) " क्या कर्मचारी ने अनुशासनिक अधिकारी के आदेश दि. 5-8-2000 के विरुद्ध कोई अपील नहीं दाखिल की 96

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Workman's claim

बल्किउसने इलाहाबाद श्रम न्यायालय के समक्ष एल.सी.ए. प्रार्थना पत्र दाखिल की जो कि 5-4-02 के आदेश के अनुसार खारिज की गई , यदि हां तो प्रभाव ? " The worker examined himself in support of his case , opposite party has however not examined any witness .

Heard the parties and perused evidence on record .

The worker has not challenged the punishment order during the argument and has confined his argument only to the extent that worker is entitled to the increments for the suspension period i.e. 18-12-88 to 11-6-96 in accordance with the circulars of the bank. During the argument the representative of the worker has drawn my attention to the para26, 32, 36 and40 of the claim statement and the replies submitted by the opposite party in the written statement with reference to the above para. Comperative chart ofthe said statement are reproduced below:

Workman's claim

Opposite party's reply

The contents of para 26 as stated are wrong and denied and the submissions made herein before are reiterated. 26: Indian Bankers Association circular No. PD/CIR/76/B / M/384 dt . 11-6-93 regarding Release of Increments for the Period Under Suspension upon Reinstatement reads

asunder "Please refer to our circular No. PD/CIR/76/B /M/376

dated 13-6-92 advising the decision of the Personnel Committee regarding release of increments for the period under susperision, upon reinstatement . The member banks were advised as under:

Pursuant to the above decision, many banks have made enquiries with I.B.A. whether past cases have to be reopened

Opposite party's reply

and fixation of pay done accord- ingly. The Personnel Committee of the Association at its meeting held on 20-5-93 decided as under

"Penalities awarded on or after 13-6-92 (date of issue of I.B.A. Circular No. PD/CIR/76/B /M/ 376) shouldbe interpreted in terms of clarifications given by the Personnel Committee . Decisions taken on past cases (penalities awarded prior to 13th June, 1992) as per the pre- valent practice in the respec- tive banks should not be re- opened, for practical consi- deration" .

Inreply topara 32 it is submitted that the disciplinary authority vide orderdt. 5-8-2000 passed that basic pay ofSri Srivastava be brought down to one lower stage in the scale of pay for one yearwithout commu- lative effect in terms of para 19.6 (c) of Bipartite Settlement dt. 19-10-66duly amended upto date . He will also not be entitled to any wages for the period of sus- pension exceptto what has been paid/ payable to him in the shape of subsistence allowance .

32: The opposite party has not passed any specific order regarding with holding of increments in the Punish- ment order 5-8-2000 . No opportunity of any kind was given to the concerned workman to defend himself against orders with holding all together eight annual graded increments i.e. annual graded increments due as on Ist Jan. 1989, 1990, 1991 , 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 , 1996.As such as per Bipartite Settle- ment of 1983 , circular dated 11-6-93 the concerned work man was entitled to receive annual graded increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement and thereafter from the oppo- site party under law.

The contents of para 36 as stated arewrong and denied and the submissions made here in before are reiterated .

36: W.E.F. 12-6-96 the concerned workman is getting full pay without adding the graded increments for the period of suspension (i.e. annual ) graded increments due as on 1st Jan. of 1989 , 1990 , 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 which he was entitled to receive in his pay as per Bipartite Settlement dt. 8-9-83 97

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Workman's claim

RELEASE OF INCREMENTS FOR THE PERIOD UNDER SUSPENSION UPON REINSTATEMENT Opposite party's reply

Please refer to our Circular No. PD/Cir/ 76/B/M/376 dated 13-6-92 advising the decision of the Personnel Committee regarding release of increments for the period under suspension, upon reinstatement. The member banks were advised as under.

and notionally also as per service conditions in Bank as perP.D. Circular 1241 dt. 7-9-90. The workman was entitled to full wages also as he was ex- onerated of the charges u/s 409 IPC by the Ist Addl . Chief Judicial Magistrate and the re- instatement order was silent on the issue of back wages ..

TheDisciplinary Authority should invariably specify while passing orders regarding the punishment, as to whether the increment's for the period of suspension are to be released or withhold. If the order is silent in this regard then it should be construed that increments fallen due during the period of suspension are to be released from the date of suspension is lifted ."

Pursuant to the above decision, many banks have made enquiries with IBA whether past cases have to be reopened and fixation of pay done accordingly . The Personnel Committee of the Association at its meeting held on 20-5-93 decide as under:

In reply to para40 it is submitted that the orderdt. 5-8-2000 passed by the Disci- plinary Authority is in accordance with the provisions ofthe Bipartite settlement. Submissions to the contrary are wrong and denied.

Penalties awarded on or after 13-6-92 (date of issue of IBA circular No. PC/Cir/76/B/M/376 ) should be interprèted in terms of clarification given by the Personnel Committee.Decisions taken on past cases not be re -opened, forpractical considerations .

The representative of the opposite party during his arguments has stated on 27-11-06 (which is re -produced as under);

The statement of representative of the OP, Sri K.P. Sharma during argument:

I have the Personnel Division Circular No. 1241 in my possession, which reads as under :

"Your attention is invited to Personnel Division Circular No. 726 dt. 21-9-83, regarding subsistence allowance during the period of suspension .

40: The competent authority has. not passed any specific order regarding with holding of increments of the period of suspension in the punishment order dt. 5-8-2000 . No opportu nity of any kind was given to the concerned workman to defend himself against orders , if any such order was passed with holding altogether eight annual graded incre- ments i.c. Annual Graded In- crements due as on 1st Jan. 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1994, 1995, 1996. And as per Bipartite Settlement 1993, cir- cular dt. 11-6-93 the concerned workman was entitled to receive annual graded increments from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement and there- after (at least notionally ) from the opposite party under law .

We have received certain references from some of the Zonal/Regional Offices seeking our guidance whether an employee under suspension shall be entitled for annual graded increment which may fall due during his suspension , Worker's only argument is that the disciplinary authority should have passed specific order regarding the punishment "whether the increment for the suspension period is to be released or with hold. If order is silent in this regard then it has to be construed that the increment fallen ducduring the period of suspension ought to be released from the date of suspension lifted. As the present order is silent regarding the release or with holding the increment, therefore , he is entitled to the notional increment from 1989 to 11-6-96 . As he has already earned and paid to the increment of the year 1988. He relies upon the circular of opposite party i.e. No. PD/Cir /76/B/M/384 dt. 11-6-93 and accordingly after calculating the notional increment for the suspension period he should be paid dues .

We would like to clarify that an employee, under suspension, will not be entitled for annual graded increment falling due during his suspension period. However, after revocation of the suspension, the increment (s ) will be released notionally and thereafter effect will be given to the punishment awarded , if any . While revoking suspension , if the Disciplinary Authority treats the period ofsuspension on duty, by allowing the benefit of fullwages for the said period, the arrears on account of release of the increment (s) during the suspension period shall also be payable. If, however, the Disciplinary Authoritydoes not allow him the benefit of full wages for the period be remained under suspension, the annual graded increment (s) falling dueduring the suspension period shall be calculated only notionally.

It is noteworthy that there is no specific denial to the circular mentioned in para 26 of the claim statement which is dt. 11-6-93 . The photo copy of aforesaid circular dt. 11-6-93 has been filed by the worker which is at paper No. 114 and is available in the.file:

3986GI/06-13 98

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007 /PAUSA 16, 1928

Asregards deductions from subsistence allowance payable to the employees under suspension , we reiterate out instructions circularized vide PD Circular No. 268 dt . 23-8-76.

(Sd/-) Asstt . General Manager (Personnel) "

[PART II SEC . 3(ii )] increments for the period of suspension and the same has to be taken into account after lifting the suspension on 12-6-96. The statement of the representative of the opposite party Sri K. P. Sharma will form the part ofthe award. Award passed accordingly.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer Lucknow 30-11-2006

According to this circular when the Disciplinary Authority does not allow him the benefit of full wages for the period he remained under suspension, the annual graded increment (s ) falling due during the suspension period shall be calculated only notionally.

Thus the admitted fact are that the punishment order dt. 5-8-2000 is silent on the releasing or withholding the annual increment and in the circumstances according to the own circular of Punjab National Bank increments for the period of suspension are to be released . Worker has specifically alleged in para 36 & 40 that annual graded increments are due as on 1st Jan. 1989 , 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 & 1996. The opposite party in his written statements has simply denied the allegations and has not stated that increments falling due during the period of suspension as notionally been considered after lifting of suspension . The worker on the other hand has stated on oath in his statement in para 8 :

" निलम्बन की अवधि में रोकी गई वेतनवृद्धियां आज तक मुझे नहीं मिली हैं । मैं 30-6-04 को सेवानिवृत्त हो चुका हूं । " Thereafter he has stated in his statement :

" मैंने उक्त वेतनवृद्धियों के लिये उ.प्र. , लेबर कोर्ट, इलाहाबाद में धारा अन्तर्गत 33 - C ( 2 ) प्रार्थना पत्र दी थी जो यह कहकर खारिज कर दी गई कि उनको क्षेत्राधिकार नहीं है । "

Opposite party has not disproved or rebutted the statement of the worker .

In the aforesaid circumstances imposing of the punishment on the worker by order dated 5-8-2000 is not illegal or unjustified. The only plea taken by the worker is that the said order has not been implemented in the light of the circularsdt. 11-6-1993 and 21-9-83 mentioned above .

It is noteworthy that the worker has not filed an appcal against the punishment order but non- filing of appeal does not effect the right of worker to receive the benefit of notional increments during suspension period. Similarly the order of Presiding Officer , U.P. Labour Court , Allahabaddt. 5-4-02 is also not able to obstruct the right of the worker to receive the benefit of circulars letter dt. 11-6-93 and 21-9-83 . Issue No. 4 is therefore decided in favour of the worker and issue No. 2 , 3 & 5 are accordingly not material for adjudication of the case as the worker has not challenge the validity of the order of punishment during the arguments .

On the aforesaid discussions I come to the conclusion that punishment order was just and proper but as the Disciplinary Authority has not withheld the annual The statement of the representative of the OP , Sri K. P. Sharma during argument :

I have the Personnel Division Circular No : 1241 in my possession , which reads as under:

"Your attention is invited to Personnel Division Circular No. 726 dt. 21-9-83 , regarding subsistence allowance during the period of suspension .

We would like to clarify that an employee , under suspension, will not be entitled for annual graded ncrement falling due during his suspension period . However, after revocation of the suspension, the increment (s) will be released notionally and thereafter effect will be given to the punishment awarded, if any. While revoking suspension, if the Disciplinary Authority treats the period of suspension on duty, by allowing the benefit of full wages for the said period, the arrears on account of release of the increment ( s ) during the suspension period shall also be payable. If, however , the Disciplinary Authority does not allow him the benefit of full wages for the period be remained under suspension , the annual graded increments ( s ) falling due during the suspension period shall be calculated only notionally.

Asregards deductions from subsistence allowance payable to the employees under suspension , we reiterate out instructions circularized vide PD Circular No. 268 dt. 23-8-76.

(Sd/-) Asstt.General Manager (Personnel ) " According to this circular when the Disciplinary Authority does not allow him the benefit of full wages for the period he remained under suspension , the annual graded increment (s) falling due during the suspension period shall be calculated only notionally.

(K. P. SHARMA) , Representative PNB 99

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2006

नई दिल्ली, 12 दिसम्बर , 2006

का. आ. 51. - जबकि मैसर्स आई टी डब्ल्यूसिग्नोड ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि- अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है।

का.आ. 52.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. जी. एच. एस. के प्रबंधक्षेत्र 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 एमंजीपी/ 152/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/219/94- आई. आर. ( डी.यू.) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 13th December, 2006 और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं हैं और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रत्तिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना, 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

S.O. 52-In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. NGP/ 152/2002 ) 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 C.G.H.S. and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-12-2006 .

अतः , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय- समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को 01-05-1986 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है।

[No. L-42012/219/94- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

[सं. एस -35015/02/2005- एस.एस.- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR New Delhi , the 12th December, 2006

Case No. NGP/152/2002 Date: 01-12-2006.

Petitioner PartyNo. 1 : SHRI V. N. ALONI, Plot No.438, Hiwari Layout, Dhangoba Sadan Nagpur , 440008 . Versus

S. O. 51. Whereas M/ s . ITW Signode (hereinafter referred to as the said establishment) has applied for exemption under Clause ( a) of sub -section ( 1 ) ofSection 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) .

Respondent : THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR ,

PartyNo.2

C.G.H.S. , Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001 . AWARD

Dated: 1st December , 2006 And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government , the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates ofcontribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Fund Scheme , 1952 (herein after referredto as the said Scheme ) in relation to the employees in any other cstablishment of similar character.

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri V.N. Aloni Plot No. 438, Hiwari Layout, Dhangoba Sadan , Nagpur , -440 008 Party No. 1 and The Deputy Director , C.G.H.S. , Civil Lines , Nagpur -440001 Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-42012/ 219/94- IR(DV)dt. 27-28/12/1995 under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from (01-05-1986 , until further notification.

2. "Whether the action of the management ofCGHS , Nagpur is not regularizing the services of Shri V.N. Aloni , acasual labour is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

[No.S- 35015/02/2005-SS- II] S.D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

100

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

3. The reference was initially sent to C.G.I.T. , Jabalpur . The Order of the Jabalpur Court shows that nobody appeared before it till 14-6-1996. Later on 9-2-1996 letter was sent under the signature Shri Vasanta Aloni that is a Petitioner one Letter is on record which indicates that on that day he was unable to file the Statement ofClaim and he prayed for adjournment. Similarly one more letter Dt. 6-4-1996 under the signature of the petitioner is on record in which he had requested that due to the poverty he could not engage the counsel and his case shouldbe disposed of. This letter is also send by him by registered A.D. Similarly on behalf of the management Shri A.B. Choudhary, Addl . Govt. Pleader had appeared but no steps were taken by any of them. The case was. transferred to this court from Jabalpur . The notices were issued under registered A.D. on26-7-2006 , however nobody appeared on the given date i.e. 11-10-2006, 1-11-2006 and even today i.e.1-12-2006. The notices are served on both the parties . The acknowledgements are on record . Thus it seems that the petitioner is not interested in continuing the claim. Similarly he did not attend despite of the notice . Hence it is dismissed for his default .

Hence this award .

Dated: 1-12-2006

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 दिसम्बर , 2006 का.आ. 53.-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 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83 , 34 से 36 तक , 44 से 50 तक , 53 से 62 तक , 82 , 84 से 96 तक , 18 , 19 , 22 से 25 तक , 102/2004 तथा 42, 44/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/176/2003- आई आर ( डी.यू. );

एल-40012/56 से 58 तक/2003- आई. आर. (डी.यू. );

एल -40012/65 से 71 तक/2003- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ;

एल-40012/149 से 155 तक/2003- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ;

एल -40012/ 140 से 142 तक/2003 - आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ;

एल -40012/177/2003- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ;

एल -40012 /169 से 175/2003 - आई. आर. ( डी.यू.) ;

एल -42012/ 220/2003- आई. आर. (डी.यू. );

एल-40012/ 189 से 191 तक/2003- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ;

एल-40012/187/2003- आई. आर. (डी.यू. );

एल -40012/ 168/2003- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ;

एल -40012/204 से 205 तक/2003- आई . आर. ( डी.यू. ) ;

एल -40012/198 से 201 तक/2003- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. );

एल -40012/213/2003- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ;

एल -40012 / 176 से 177 तक/2004- आई . आर. (डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th December, 2006 S.O. 53. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83 , 34 to 36, 44 to50 , 53 to 62, 82, 84 to 96, 18, 19, 22 to 25 , 102/ 2004 and 42, 44/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-12-2006 .

[No. L-40012/176/2003 - IR (DU) ;

L-40012/56 to 58/2003 - IR (DU) ;

L-40012 /65 to 71 /2003 - IR (DU);

L-40012/149 to 155/2003 - IR (DU) ;

L-40012/140 to 142/2003 - IR (DU);

L-40012/177/2003 -IR (DU) ;

L-40012/169 to 175/2003 - IR (DU) ;

L-40012/220/2003 - IR (DU);

L-40012/189 to 191 /2003 - IR (DU) ; L-40012/187/2003- IR(DU) ;

L-40012/168/2003 - IR (DU) ;

L-40012/204 to 205/2003 - IR (DU) ; L-40012/198 to 201 /2003 - IR ( DU ) ; L-40012/213/2003 - IR (DU) ; L-40012/176 to 177/2004- 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, NEWDELHI Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai

I.D. Nos. 83,34, 35, 36, 44, 45,46,47,48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 , 91, 92, 93 , 94, 95, 96, 18, 19, 22 , 23 , 24, 25, 102/2004 , 42/2005 and 44/2005 .

In the matter of:-

Shri Attar Singh and 43 Ors . , Village:Budena, PostOffice: Badoli , Tehsil : Faridabad (Haryana)

Versus

1. The General Manager (Telecom) , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, 86-87 Commercial Complex , Sector-16, Faridabad (Haryana) .

101 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. M/s. Anuradha Security Services , C/o The General Manager (Telecom), BSNL, 86-87, Commercial Complex, Sector-16, Faridabad (Haryana).

3. M/s . Luxman Security Services (Regd.) , Kesho Kutir, 509, Ranjit Gali , Yamunanagar (Haryana)- 135001 .

IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 19-01-2004, L-40012/ 198/ 2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 19-01-2004, L -40012/ 213/2003 - IR (DU) Central Government Dt . 01-06-2004, L-40012 /176 /2003 - IR (DU ) Central Government Dt. 03-05-2005 & L-40012/ 177/2004- IR (DU ) Central GovernmentDt. 09-05-2005 has referred the following point foradjudication.

The points run as hereunder:-

4. M/ s . Keshav Security Services , 414; Osian Building, 12, Nehru Place , NewDelhi -110019.

AWARD

"Whether the action of the management of GMTD, BSNL, Faridabad in terminating/disengaging the services of S/Shri Attar Singh, S/o Shri Budh Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Tej Ram, Guard w.ed.01-09-2002, Bharat Singh, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Parveen Kumar, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Daryab Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Kanwar Pal, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Charat Singh, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Ashok Kumar , Guardw.e.f. 01-09-2002, Inder Veer w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Brij Pal, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Bharat Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Mahesh Chand, S/o Shri Chandi Ram, Guardw.e.f. 01-09-2002, Rajpal Singh, S/o, Shri Chanda Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Mahipal, S/o Shri Arami w.e.f. 01-09-2002,Mukesh, S/o Shri Harikesh, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Sunder Singh, S/o Shri Ramesh, Gunman w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Udai Vir, S/o Shri Attar Singh, Guard w.e.f. 01-9-2002,Vikram Singh, S /o Shri Chander Mal, Gunman w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Kumar Pal, S/o . Shri Samrath Singh, Ved Pal, S/o Shri Harish Chander, Ram Shankar Verma, S/o Shri Rajna Verma, Sanjay Kumar , S/o Shri Ramphal Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Surinder Singh, S/o Shri Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Birpal , S/o Shri Arami , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Devinder , S/o Shri Arami , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Kumar Pal , S/o Shri Shyam Lal w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Mam Chand, S/oRam Swaroop w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Hari Om Gupta, S/o. Shri Babu Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Amar Singh, S/o Shri Ami Lal , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Shyam Lal , S/o Shri Aji Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Desh Raj, S/o Shri Rati Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Hari Chand, Sto Shri Sumer Chandw.e.f. 01-09-2002, Balbir Singh, S/o Shri Khajan Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Rohtash Kumar , S/o Shri Ramphal Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002 and Shri Mam Raj , S/o Shri Ghasitta, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 without complying with the provisions of ID Act, 1947 and non-conferring of temporary status on them in accordance with the DOPTS Scheme of September , 1993 and thereby non - regularizing their services in terms ofprovisions ofCL (R&A) Act, 1970, employed through Security Contractors Viz . M/s . Luxman Security Agency, M/ s . Keshav Security Services , M/s . Anuradha Security Services was just, fair and legal? Ifnot, what'reliefthey are entitled to and from which date ."

The Ministry of Labour by its letter Nos . L-40012/ 176/2003-IR (DU) Central GovemmentDt. 17-05-04, L-40012/ 56/2003 - IR (DU ) Central Government Dt . 23-02-2004, L-40012/ 57/2003 - IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 23-02-2004, L-40012/58/2003- IR (DU) Central GovernmentDt. 23-02-2004, L-40012/65/2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 23-02-2004, 1-40012/66/2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 23-02-2004, L- 40012 / 67 / 2003 - IR ( DU ) Central Government Dt.23-02-2004, L-40012/68/2003- IR (DU) Central Government Di. 23-02-2004 , L - 40012 /69/2003 - IR ( DU) Central Government Dt 23-02-2004 , L-40012/70/2003 - IR(DU) Central Government Dt . 23-02-2004, L-40012/71 /2003 - IR (DU) CentralGovernment Dt. 23-02-2004, L -40012/ 154/2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/155/ 2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/ 153/2003 - IR (DU) Central Government Dt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/ 152/2003-IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/ 151/2003 -IR(DU) Central GovernmentDt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/150/2003- IR(DU) CentralGovernmentDt. 01-04-2004, L-4012/149/2003- IR(DU) CentralGovernmentDt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/142/2003 -IR(DU) Central Govemment Dt . 01-04-2004, L-40012/141/2003 - IR(DU) CentralGovernment Dt. 01-04-2004, L-40012 / 140/2003 - IR ( DU ) Central Government Dt. 01-04-2004, L-40012/177/2003- IR (DU) Central Govemment Dt. 17-05-2004, L- 40012 /175/2003 - IR (DU ) Central GovernmentDt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/ 174/2003 - IR(DU) Central Government Dt . 17-05-2004, L- 40012/173 /2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/172/ 2003-IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/ 171/2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/170/2003 - IR(DU) CentralGovernmentDt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/169/2003- IR(DU) Central GovernmentDt. 17-05-2004, L - 40012 /220/ 2003 - IR (DU ) Central Government Dt . 17-05-2004, L- 40012/ 191 /2003 - IR (DU) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/ 190/2003 - IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L - 40012/189/2003- IR(DU) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/187/ 2003- IR(DU) Central GovemmentDt. 17-05-2004, L-40012/ 168 /2003- IR (DU ) Central Government Dt. 17-05-2004, L-40012 /205 / 2003 - IR (DU ) Central Government Dt. 19-01-2004, L-40012/204/2003 - IR (DU) Central Govemment Dt . 19-01-2004, L - 40012/201 /2003 - IR (DU ) Central Government Dt. 19-01-2004, L- 40012/200/2003 - IR (DU) Central Government Dt. 19-01-2004 , L- 40012/199/2003- 102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16 , 1928

[ PART II- SBC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Sl. No.

Name of Workmen

Date of engagement

Dateof engagement

25-04-1994 01-09-2002

21. Ram Shankar Verma

01-01-1999

01-09-2002

22 . Sanjay Kumar

01-09-2002

23. Surinder Singh 06-01-1996

24. Veer Pal

01-09-2002

January, 1999

25. Devender

01-09-2002

January, 2000

26. Kumar Pal

01-09-2002

May,1994

"Whether the termination of services of S / Shri Harinder Singh , Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Gopal , SecurityGuard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Narender, Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Bhagat Singh , Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Roop Ram, Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Tejveer , SecurityGuard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Sanjay, Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Satveer Singh S/o Shri Hari Ram , Guard and Shri Sher Singh S/o Shri Harchanda Nagar, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 by the management of BNSL , Faridabad isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ."

27 . Mam Chand 20-10-1994

01-09-2002

28. Hari OmGupta 24-07-1994

01-09-2002

January,2000

29. Amar Singh

19-06-2001

01-09-2002

30. ShyamLal

01-09-2002

31. Desh Raj

January, 2000

32. Harish Chand 24-10-1994

01-09-2002

33. Balbir

February, 1999 01-09-2002

34. Rohtas Kumar 24-05-1996

01-09-2002 I. D. Nos . 83 , 34, 35, 36,44, 45,46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 , 62, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 18 , 19 , 22 ,23 , 24, 25, 102/2004,42/ 2005& 44/2005 involve common dispute . These are connected cases and they can be adjudicated by common award . There is variance regarding the date of engagement and disengagement of the claimants/ workmen. The grounds of all the above mentioned cases are the same . So all the above mentioned cases are taken up together.

02-08-1999

01-09-2002

35. Mam Raj

01-09-2002

March . 1995

36. Harinder Singh

01-09-2002

37. Gopal

July,1994

The date of engagement and disengagement of all the workmen concerned with all the above mentioned ID Nos . are as under:-

38. Narinder

01-09-2002

July, 1994

Date of

01-09-2002

39. Bhagat Singh January, 1996

Sl . No.

Name of Workmen

engagement

Date of engagement

March, 1995 01-09-2002

40. Roop Ram

10-08-1994

01-09-2002

Attar Singh

1996

01-09-2002

41. TejVir

2. Tej Ram

March, 1994 01-09-2002

01-09-2002

42. Sanjay

January, 1999

01-09-2002

Bharat Singh January, 1998

43. Satveer

01-09-2002

April, 1996

01-09-2002

Praveen Kumar January, 1998

01-09-2002

March, 1998

44. Sher Singh

20-04-1994

01-09-2002

Daryab Singh

6. KanwarPal

01-09-2002

June, 1995

01-09-2002

Charat Singh January,2000

8. Ashok Kumar

01-09-2002

January, 1997

9. Indervir

The workmen applicants have filed statement of claim. In the statement of their claim they have stated that they were employed by the above management since 10-08-1994 and at the relevant period were working as a SecurityGuard and were drawing monthly wages of Rs . 2 . 650/-permonth.

01-09-2002

January, 1998

10.

01-09-2002

Brijpal

June, 1994

That the work and conduct of the workmen were quite satisfactory during the period of their employment .

01-09-2002

11 . Bharat Singh January,2000

12. Mahesh

20-08-2000

01-09-2002

20-04-1994

01-09-2002

13. Rajpal

That the Demand notice of the claimants/workmen may also be read as part of this claim statement . The photocopy of the Demand Notice is enclosed as Annexure -A with this claim statement .

27-02-1996

01-09-2002

14. Mahipal

15. Mukesh

01-09-2002

July, 2001

01-09-2002

16. Surinder Singh 01-04-1998

17. Udai Veer

07-07-1994

01-09-2002

18. Vikaram Singh July, 1995

19. Kumar Pal

10-07-1997

01-09-2002

20. Ved Pal

May,1995 01-09-2002

That the aforesaid management terminated the services of the above named workmen with effect from 01-09-2002 by verbal order . This is a case of refusal ofduty and amounts to termination of services and retrenchment and that too without compliance of the mandatory pre- requisites of Section 25 - N &25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also a case of unfair labour practice . After terminating the services of the above named claimants/ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

103 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

workmen the aforesaid management appointed new other employees in our place which is violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

organization under the guidelines to apply for security work and for that prupose they applied to the DGR for deployment of security personnel .

That the termination of services in all the above mentioned case is wrongful , illegal and against the principles of natural justice , mala fide and a case of vindictiveness and also unfair labour practice . The workmen are , therefore , entitled to reinstatement with all the consequential benefits including wages for the intervening period.

It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Courtbe pleased to pass an award in directing the respondent/ management to reinstate the workmen in their services with full back wages . The workmen as duty bound shall ever pray.

Thatthe Security Personnel provided by the agency are in no way connected with the recruitment procedure of the answering management rather they are employees of agency under the terms of employment either by DGR's Guidelines or by the terms of employment, if any, settled by them with the agency. There is no privity of contract between the workmen deployed by the agency and the answering management. The BSNL accordingly in case of need for security personnel hires the services of such agency.At no point of time present workmen were recruited bythe management. Therefore , the present dispute falsely raised by the workmen deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The Hon'ble High Court in this judgment as well as in various other judgments has upheld the validity of deployment of such contractors ' labours and such labours do not have any lien on the management organization.

The management has filed Written Statement . Inthe Written Statement it has been stated that the reference is bad in law in as much as the management neither employed the workmen nor were terminated by the management and, therefore, there was no employer -employee relationship between the workmen and the management . The workmen were neither engaged nor recruited by the management nor they were a member of service nor any appointment letter was issued, nor their services were terminatedbythe management . Hence , the workmen have no locus standi to raise any Industrial Dispute and, therefore , also the reference made by the appropriate Government is bad in law.

That in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State ofHimachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar Verma reported as JT 1996 (2) SC 455, it has beenheld that appointment of Daily Wages basis is not an appointment to a post according to the Rules and cannot give any protection to re - engage such person in anywork or toappoint them against the existing vacancies . Therefore, also, assuming without admitting that if the workmen had worked on some days are not entitled to any relief from this Hon'ble Tribunal .

Itisspecifically denied that the workmen joined the management w.e.f. 10-8-1994 as Security Guards . They have to put to strict proof of their contention . They are called upon to produce the letter of appointment . In 1994 BSNL was not yet created but it was the department of Telecom and as such being a Government Department without following the Recruitment Rules nobody could have been employed and as the factum of employment itself is false the question of their drawing monthly wages of Rs . 2650/- permonth does not arise . They are called upon to produce the salary slip or the cheque particulars if issued by the management on every month . The workmen have also failed toproduce any such proof of employment even before the ConciliationOfficer. And without substantiating even the basic relationship of employer - employee the present reference has been made mechanically without any application of mind.

That the workmen were never appointed by the management the averments made in the para under reply are out of place and the question of their work and conduct being satisfactory during the period of employment , The workmen are called upon to produce the records maintained by them as alleged showing their satisfactory work and conduct . The management reserves its right to file proper reply to the said averment if the workmen produce such documents .

That in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Delhi in the case of State of M/s . Keshav Security Services and Anr. Versus Union of India and Ors . W.P. ( Civil) No. 3917/2002 decided on 4-9-2002 that the Director General Resettlement (hereinafter referred to as "DGR" ) , Ministry ofDefence, formulated guidelines for sponsoring and operating of security agencies and related activities to facilitate employment of ex -servicemen and to fulfil the requisitions of various Public Sector Undertakings . The main object för issuing the said guidelines was to generate employment opportunity for cx- servicemen and for that purpose Ministry of Industry ; Department of Public Enterprises issued an Office Memorandum dated 1st February, 1999 whereby various Public Sector Undertakings under different Ministries were instructed to hire Security Agenciesfor obtaining security services for their institutions through DGR. The said instructions were again followed 69 Defence Ministry circular dated 26-4-2001 and BSNL Memorandum dated3- 04-2002 whereby all BSNL establishments were instructed to engage Secruity Personnel from DGR sponsored agency only. Prior to this BSNL was engaging security services through open tender in which both private agency and those approved by the DGR would compete . That as per the aforesaid guidelines , the BSNL is an eligible [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

104

1. Whether there is employer - employee relationship between the workmen and the management?

2. Whether the workmen are entitled for regularization or reinstatement?

It is denied that the alleged Demand Notice can be read as part of this claim . In any case the contents of Demand Notice are as false and frivolous as the present claim and hence denied . No. copy of Annexure - Ahas been supplied to the management along with the claim.

3. The amount of back wages ?

4. Relief if any ?

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workmen have filed photocopies of attendance sheets verified by sub - Divisional Engineer and one photocopy verified by the SDE, Telecom, Faridabad the other photocopies of attendance sheets have been verified by the Supervisor of the management .

The management has not filed any paper in support ofthe Written statement .

The management witness has admitted that " I have not filed any document other than the Written Statement and the affidavit".

It is denied that the management terminated the services of the above named workmen w.e.f. 1-9-2002 by any verbal order . As has been repeatedly said that the workmen were never appointed by the management therefore, there is no basis for alleging that their services were terminated by the management . Since there is no appointment there is no question of refusal of duty and since there is termination of any service by the manangement . There is no question of violation of any provisions including Section 25- N and 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is denied that after alleged termination of the present workmen services , some new employees have been appointed . Both the allegations of their termination as well as new appointment are hypothetical and concocted.

That in the absence of any termination in the present case the allegations of the alleged hypothetical termination being wrongful , illegal , against the principles of natural justice, malafide and a case of vindictiveness unfair labour practice is specifically denied . It is denied that the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with any consequential benefits . The prayer clause is misconceived, hence , denied. The workmen are not entitled to get any relief from this Hon'ble Tribunal .

In view of the above facts and circumstances stated above , the claims filed by the workmen are liable to be rejected with costs.

Itbecomes quite obvious that the management has not filed copy of even contract agreement with the contractor and documents regarding payment to the contractors . The workmen have filed attendance sheets to show their presence . The management has not denied the photocopies of attendance sheets filed by the workmen . There is no endorsement of denial . The management witness has not stated in his cross - examination that photocopies are not true copies of the original attendance sheets . The original attendance sheets are in the possession of the management . So the workmen cannot be expected to file the same . The workmen have filed attendance sheet from January, 1996 to January, 1998. These attendance sheets are admissible in evidence as the originals are in the possession of the management . This proves the fact that the workmen have worked in the premises of the management as Security Guards continuously from January, 1996 to January , 1998 .

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 of both the parties has been taken .

The case of the workmen is that they were engaged in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and they have worked continuouslytill 1-9-2002 . The chart of the duration of work of the workmen has been given .

The workmen have deposed that they worked under the supervision and control of the management . Duty was assigned to the workmen by the Junior Engineer of the management . It was the burden of the management to prove that the contractors have made payment to the workmen . No such paper in proof of the payment being made by the contractors to the workmen has been filed by the management .

The cases of the workmen are almost the same except the date of engagement and disengagement . Cross- examination of 22 workmen has been taken . All the workmen except S/Shri Mahesh ( ID No. 53/2004) , Mukesh ) ID No. 56/2004), Amar Singh (ID No. 90/2004 ) , and Shri Harinder Singh ( ID' No. 18/2004) have filed affidavit in support of their claim. It was decided that the evidence of these workmen will be read in all the cases . From the management side also only one management witness has been examined. It was decided that his evidence will be read in the other connected cases .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

It was further submitted that there was no contract agreement between the contractors and the management. The workmenwere taken directly by the management. The contractors were mere name lender. They got some commission .

From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the following issues arise for determination .

105

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

reality behind 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.

Itwas 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 capriciously . The management has not been acting fairly impartially and reasonably .

TheHon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 3527 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 the 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 betreated as the employees of the principal employer who shallbe directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment.

Incase ofreal contract there is agreement between themanagement and the contractor for supply of workmen on certain terms and conditions . Wages are tobe paidby the contractor . EPF is to be deposited by the contractor. The workmen are enrolled in ESIC. The management has not filed any paper to prove that EPF was deducted from the wages of the workmen and their names were registered by the contractors under the ESIC Scheme . No such document has been filed. This proves that there was no contract in existence and the workmen worked directlyunder the control and supervision of the management. The workmen cannot be expected to file slips of EPF and the Registration Card under ESIC . These are material documents for a valid contract but no such document has beenfiledbythe mamangement . The workmenhave filed photocopies of attendance sheets verified by the Sub- DivisionalEngineer , SDE and the Junior Engineer and these documents have not been denied by the management . So it stands provedthat the workmen have worked from 1994 onwards as has been specified in the chart of tenure of work of the workmen. It also stands proved that the management has been making payment directly . There is no contractor even as name lender . No EPF has been deposited. The workmen have not been registered under ESIC Scheme . The management has committed grave violation ofthe provisions ofthe ID Act, 1947, PF Act and even ESIC. Such practice has been held as unfair labour practiceunder ID Act, 1947.

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 employees thus appointed by the servant will be equally with the employer servant of the masters. In the instant case there is no servant to employ a number of persons . The name of the contractor is fake one .

My attention was drawn to several directions ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the circumstances in which such workmen are to be treated as the employees of the employer directly. It was further submittd that 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 .

In JT2003 (1 ) SC465- the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that industrial adjudication is appropriate remedy for the alleged contract ,workers .

Ithas beenheld in 1999 Lab IC 825 that the Tribunal cangive 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 shamand bogus . There is no reference regarding abolition of contract labour .

In (2000) ISCC 126-the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there are multiple pragmatic approach/factors which should be considered in deciding employer and employee relationship . According to 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 relieved ofhis liabilities .

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 worked under the control and supervision of the management. There is no proof that money is paid to the contractor and the contractor pays to its workmen. The management makes payment of wages to theworkmen directly.

In JT 1999 (2) SC 435 - the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasheld that if the work is of perennial nature or ofsufficient duration, contract workers shall be considered to be the It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SCI - workman ARI Ltd. Versus ARI Ltd. Bhaw Nagar that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the

3986G1/06-14 106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] direct employees of the management and they are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of the management .

orders from time to time; an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to exercise his owndiscretion as to the mode and time of doing it he is bound by his contract, but not by his employer's orders ."

Inthe instant case the workmen performed the duties of watch and ward under the supervision, direction and the presence of the employer and not of the contractor . The security purposes of watching and guarding the premises of the management is perennial in nature . The management retains the power of controlling the work so the workmen are the employees of the respondent/ management .

The work in the instant case , no doubt, is of perennial nature as the workmen have been continuously working since 1994. It is for sufficient duration . So the alleged contractor's men will become the servant of the management ..In order to veil this reality the management is giving the name of several contractors every year . The management is doing violent injustice to the workmen. They have been deprived of the facilities and emoluments 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 .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management thatthe workmen are the contractor's men and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to regularize the workmen. Only the Central Government can abolish the contract labour and direct for regularization of the contractor's men. There is no merit in the argument of the management . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of cases has decided that it the dutyof industrial adjudicator to examine and give findings whether contract is sham and a mere camouflage to evade the responsibility of the management.

InPollock Law of Torts a servant and an independent contractor has been defined as under:

The distinctionbetween 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'sLaw of Torts, (Pages 62 & 63 of Pollock on Torts , 15th Edn.) the distinction has thus been brought out :

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 the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth, though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that " the real employer isthe management, not the immediate contractor. Myriad devices , half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type ofindustry, the local conditions and the like may be resorted towhen 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 ."

"A master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end ofhis work, but directs or at any moment may direct the means also, or, as it has been put, retains the power ofcontrolling the work , a servant is a person subject tothe 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 executiori 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 before hand ............. "

In Salmond's Treatise on the Law of Torts the distinction between a servant and independent contractor has been indicated as under :-

My attention was drawn to the Constitution Bench Judgment in Scale (2006) 4 Scale by the management. It has beenheld in this case 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. Aservant is a person engaged to obey his employer's

"A. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder . 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 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

107 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

are not treated equals . Thus , any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme .

result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is amere 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 genuinebut amere camouflage , the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services ofthe contract labour in the establishment cornicerned. ".

B. A sovereign government , considering the cconomic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages . Going by a law 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 a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule" .

It has beenheld in this case that whether there is prohibition of contract labour or otherwise the industrial adjudicator 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 labourwill have to be treated as the employee of the principal employer and he shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract workers .

It was submitted that in view of this Constitution Bench Judgment an employee cannot be regularized even ifhe has worked for any number of years .

My attention was drawn to another Constitution Bench Judgment-Steel Authority of India . It has been held as under :-

Engagement of contract workers for perennial and regular nature ofjob is prohibited. The security function is aperennial nature of job . So long as the respondents exists there wouldbe need of security for them, so the work is of existing, continuous and perennial in nature for such work contract workers cannot be employed.

"According to well recognisation 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 establishment . In the present case the work is of the establishment 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 is the duty of State to give employment to its citizens and not of the contractors . Contractors cannot supply labour to any establishment.

"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 bemaster 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 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 might arise whether the contract is a mere camouflage as in hussainabhai Calicut's case (supra) and in 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."

In view of the above discussion it becomes quite obvious that the contractor is only a label of a bottle . This label 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 a system is in-human .

In the instant case the workmen have not been hired in connection with the work of a contractor but they have 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 ..

It was submitted from the side of the management that the Security Personnels provided by the agency are in no way connected with the recruitment procedure of the management . They are the employees of the agency under theterms ofemployment either by DGR's guidelines or by terms of appointment if any settled by them with the agency. There is no privity of contract between the workmen deployed by the agency and the management . The management hires the services of agencies for Security Personnels . They cannot be deemed to be engaged by the management .

My attention was drawn to judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court M/s . Keshave 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 broug ICC 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 of having undertaken to produce any given [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007 /PAUSA 16 , 1928

Security Services Vs. Union of India and others WP (Civil) No. 3917/02 .

The workmen have not worked for 8 years or more than 8 years . So in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court 2006 (4) Scale they do not deprieve regularization.

The workmen have not completed 10 years of service so there is no question of any feasibility of their regularization .

The workmen have worked for 240 days. continuously from in between 1994 up to 2002 .

It was submitted that the workmen have been engaged under the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court . The real judgment and directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court have been cited above . It is settled law that contract labour cannot be utilized for a work perennial in nature or of sufficient duration . The work of Security watch and engagement of Security Personnels is a job of continuous and perennial in nature . Contract Labours cannot be engaged for such functions . The law cited above bythe management is not applicable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the present case .

My attention was drawn by the Ld . Counsel of the workmanto 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 .

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 .

My attention was 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.

As per Section 10 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1970, the contract workers cannot be engaged for a work of perennial nature and of sufficient duration . Engagement of contract men for a regular nature of work is prohibited by legislation . There can be no valid government policy in violation of this section by the government or by any DGR . In case there are settled rules no policy decision can be taken against the rules . Engagement of contract workers for perennial nature of work has been prohibited by Section 10( 1 ) of the Act, 1970. The workmen have been engaged in absolute violation of this provision .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen 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 workman has 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 in 2001 SC and in several other judgments cited above that in case there is contract of service the workmen become the employees of the employer. In the instant case the workmen worked for the respondents and not for the contractors . They have worked in the premises of the management and payment has been made to them by the management. Attendance of these workmen has been taken by the management .

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 workmen who have continuously worked for the period mentioned in the chart.

There is not even a facade of papers of contract arrangement . No paper regarding contract has been filed. All the workmen have worked for a long till their disengagement . They have worked for the periods mentioned againt their names in the chart . They have become the direct employees of the employer . The management has not followed the statutory rules and has not acted within the parameters of law . Labour Legislations casts welfare obligation on the real employer .

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 and 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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case the workmen have worked regularly for the period mentioned against their names in the chart .

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 :-

They have worked for 240 days in many years directly under the supervision and control of the management. They have become the employees of the management by operation of law. This issue is decided accordingly .

"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 apermanent workman. "

Issue No.2. There are two references governing the cases of the workmen . One is for regularization and other is for declaring the termination of the services illegal and reinstatement .

109 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee .

Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule stipulates that in case theworkmen 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 retrenchment compensation .

Itwas submitted that Section 25 F, G, T, U and Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule ofthe ID Act have been deliberately violated.

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 of Public Sector unit will go on resorting to the method pick and choose policy and give temporary and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles ofequality 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 Actgoverning 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 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 of dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . According to this benign provision this Tribunat has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit.

In case retrenchment.compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted. There is no cessation of services . They are 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 un- necessarily so Section 25F, U , T and Clause 10 ofVth Schedule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 shows 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.

Athree Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court hasheld in 1993 II - LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also ofthe dependents . So in case of illegal termination of service the workman should be reinstated.

In ( 1997 ) 11 SCC 521 the Hon'ble Apex Court found the termination valid as the appointment was for specified period of two months .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down a complete ban 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 .

Itwasfurther 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 dailywages .

Reinstatement should not be misconceived as regularization. By the order of reinstatement the statias quo ante ofthe 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 beanannulled 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 .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen that theyhave worked continuously in many years . They liave not been engaged by any contractor. There is no cessation oftheir service.They shall be deemed continued in service in the eye of law. In such circumstances they are entitled to 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 tocontinue them for life time. Fixedterm 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 110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] reinstatement . It is admitted case that the workmen have not been paid retrenchment compensation.

camouflage . The workmen should have been paid retrenchment compensation while terminating their services.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workmen that in view of AIR 2001 SC 672 the workmen should be reinstated in service as their services have been illegally terminated.

They should be reinstated on the post they worked. This issue is decided accordingly .

Issue No. 3 : It was submitted from the side of the workmen that they have been out of employment all along. They are earning their bread and butter somehow or the other . They are entitled to full back wages .

Reinstatement is not regularization . There is differencebetween regularization and reinstatement. When order terminating the services of a workman is struck down it is as ifthe order had never been passed . It must ordinarily lead to reinstatement . In the instant case reinstatement will not cause any hardship to the management. The work is of continuous and regular nature . The work of Security Watch andGuard is still being carried on in the management . Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds ofmischiefs the Court has to give relief. In the instant case the services of the workmen have been terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation .

The 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 .

In 2004 VIII AD SC 444 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of reinstatement with 25 % back wages .

Inthe instant case the workmen have legal right to continue in service in terms of provisions of Section 25 F of the IDAct, 1947 .

The termination of the workmen in the instant case doesnot fall within the exception of Section 2 (00) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947. Therefore , termination is retrenchment . It is not valid one , hence Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 are attracted.

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 .

InAIR 2002 SC 1313 the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced theback wages to 25% .

In the instant case the workmen have discharged the duties of Security Guards , Chowkidar and Gunman. The management has not taken the plea that the workmen are employed elsewhere in any establishment . The workmen have filed affidavit that they are out of employment and they are depending for their livelihood on their kith and kin..

In the facts and circumstances the workmen are entitled to get 50 % back wages . This issue is decided accordingly.

In 2005 IV AD SC 39-hree 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 without payment of compensation and pay in lieu ofnotice .

Issue No. 4: It has been held that there is employer- employee relationship between the management and the workmen, contract is sham . The workmen have worked for 240 days in many years . They have not been paid retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu ofnotice in compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947. So the workmen are entitled to get 50% back wages .

The reference is replied thus:

It was submitted from the side of the management that reinstatement is not the only remedy. In such cases the workman may be given compensation . Section 11 A of the ID Act , 1947 provides that in case of dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement should be ordered. It has 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 ithas become sick there may be order for payment ofcompensation.

It istrue that in 2006 (4) Scale the Constitution Bench ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Government is not precluded from making temporary and adhoc appointments . The Government can make temporary , adhoc and Daily Wager appointments but the postulates of Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 are to be complied with.

Ithas been held in Issue No.1 that the workmen are the direct employees of the management and contract is

The action of the management of GMTD , BSNL, Faridabad in terminating/disengaging the services of S/Shri Attar Singh , S/ o. Shri Budh Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Tej Ram, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Bharat Singh, Guardw.e.f. 01-09-2002, Parveen Kumar, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Daryab Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Kanwar Pal , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Charat Singh, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Ashok Kumar, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Inder Veer w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Brij Pal , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Bharat Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Mahesh Chand, S/o . Shri Chandi Ram, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Rajpal Singh, S/o . Shri Chanda Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Mahipal S/ o Shri Arami w.e.f. 01-09-2002, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Mukesh S/o . Shri Harikesh, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Sunder Singh, S/o Shri Ramesh, Gunman w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Udai Vir, S/o Shri Attar Singh, Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Vikram Singh , S/o . Shri Chander Mal, Gunman w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Kumar Pal , S/o Shri Samrath Singh, Ved Pal, S/o Shri Harish Chander, Ram Shankar Verma, S/o Shri Rajna Verma, Sanjay Kumar , S/o Shri Ramphal Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Surinder Singh, S/o Shri Ram wie.f. 01-09-2002, Birpal , S/o Shri Arami , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Devinder, S/o Shri Arami , Guardw.e.f. 01-09-2002, Kumar Pal, S/o Shri Shyam Lal w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Mam Chand , S/o . Ram Sawroop w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Hari Om Gupta, S/o Shri Babu Ram w.c.f. 01-09-2002, Amar Singh, S/o Shri Ami Lal , Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Shyam Lal , S/o Shri Aji Ram w.c.f. 01-09-2002, Desh Raj , S/o , Shri Rati Ram w.e.f. 01-09-2002 , Hari Chand, S/o . Shri Sumer Chand w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Balbir Singh, S/o Shri Khajan Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Rohtash Kumar, S/ o Shri Ramphal Singh w.e.f. 01-09-2002 and Shri Mam Raj , S/o. Shri Ghasitta , Guard w.e.f. 01.09.2002 without complying with the provisions of ID Act, 1947 and non- conferring of temporary status on them in accordancewith the DOPTS Scheme of September , 1993 and thereby non- regularizing their services in terms of provisions of CL (R&A) Act, 1970 , employed through Security Contractors Viz. Mis . Luxman Security Agency, M/s . Keshav Security Services, M/s . Anuradha Security Services is neither just nor fair nor legal . The management is directed to reinstate all the above named workmen applicants except S/Shri Mahesh ( ID No.53/2004), Mukesh (ID No.56/2004) and Shri Amar Singh (ID No. 90/2004) because these three workmen have not filed their affidavits along with 50 % back wages w.e.f. 01-09-2002 and make payment of the entire arrears within two months from the date ofpublication of the award.

Thetermination of services of S/ Shri Harinder Singh, Security Guard we.f. 01-09-2002, Gopal, SecrurityGuard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Narender, Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Bhagat Singh, SecurityGuard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Roop Ram, SecurityGuard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Tejveer, SecurityGuard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Sanjay, Security Guard w.e.f. 01-09-2002, Satveer Singh, S/o . Shri Hari Ram, Guard and Shri Sher Singh, S/o. Shri Harchanda Nagar, Guard w.e.f. 01.09.2002 bythe management of BSNL, Faridabad is neither just nor legal. The management is directed to reinstate all the above namedworkmen applicants except Shri Harinder Singh (ID No. 18/2004 ) because this workman has not filed his affidavit along with 50 % back wages w.e.f. 01-09-2002 and make payment of the entire arrears within two months from the date of publication of the award.

Award is given accordingly. Date: 04-12-2006

R. N. RAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2006

का.आ. 54.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एल. आई. सी.

111

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 235/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -17011 /22/1999- आई. आर. ( जी.- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th December, 2006 S.O.54 In pursuance of Section 17of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 235/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of LIC of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13- 12-2006.

[No. L- 17011/22/1999 - IR (B - II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LLB. , Presiding Officer (Fridaythe 1st day of December, 2006)

L.D. 235/2006

(I.D.8/2000 of State Labour Court, Ernakulam) Union

:: TheGeneral Secretary,

L.I.C. Employees Union , Ernakulam Division C/o LIC of India, Divisional Office Jeevan Prakash, M. G. Road, Ernakulam-682011 .

Adv. Shri Ashok M. Cheriyan

: The Divisional Officer, Management

L.I.C. of India, Divisional Office, JeevanPrakash , M.G. Road, P.B. No. 1133 , Ernakulam-682011 .

Adv . Shri Lal George

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 )(d) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947to thisCourt for adjudication. The reference is:

112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Ernakulam Divisional Office in denying the Assistance of a Co -employee working in the same Divisional Office in the domestic enquiry pending against the workman Smt . K.T. Vishnukumari ,Higher Grade Assistant, LIC of India, Branch Office Perumbavoor , Ernakulam division is legal andjustified ? If not, what relief is the workman concerned entitled to?"

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, MUMBAI PRESENT

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -21 of2006.

PARTIES

Employers in relation to the management of M/s. South West Port Ltd.

And

Their workmen

APPEARANCES

Absent

For the Management

Forthe Union

2. When the matter came up for consideration the learned counsel for the union submitted that the domestic enquiry is over and punishment has been imposed on the workman . In the circumstances he is not pursuing the dispute under reference for the time being . An endorsement was made by the learned counsel to that effect on the claim statement. The management has no objection in disposing of the reference in the light of the submission of the learned counsel for the union .

3. In the result an award is passed closing the reference and finding that there is no subsisting dispute , but without prejudice to the right of the workman to challenge the findings and the punishment in the domestic enquiry.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 1st day of December, 2006.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX: NIL

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 55.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स साउथ वेस्ट पोर्ट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -36011 /2/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th December , 2006 S.O. 55. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. - I , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . South West Port Ltd. , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-12-2006.

[No. L-36011/2/2006 - IR (B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

Mr. B. S. Bhosale, General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union State

Maharashtra Mumbai , dated the 29th day of November, 2006. AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( the Act for short ) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No. L - 36011 /2/2006 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 9-6-2006. Theterms of reference given in the Schedule are asfollows:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. South West Port Ltd. , Goa in not regularizing the employment of Shri Raghoba Kotkar and 21 others w.e.f. 19-6-2004 as demanded by the Transport and Dock Workers Union, Goa vide their representations dated 26-10-2005 and 13-12-2005 is legal and justified and what relief the workmen are entitled for ? " 2. The matter came up for hearing today. Mr. B.S. Bhosale, General Secretary, Transport and Dock Workers Union,Goa has moved an application for withdrawal ofthe reference on the assurance given out by the Administration ofM/ s . South West Port Ltd. No statement of claim is being filed by the Union . The request is being made for withdrawal of the reference .

In these circumstances , the reference is dismissed as prayed.

AnAward is made accordingly. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 56. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 129/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/87/2002- आई आर (बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th December, 2006 S.O. 56. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 129/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 13-12-2006.

[No. L- 12011/87/2002 -IR (B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

Shri P.L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL.B., Presiding Officer Monday, the 4th day of December, 2006

I.D. 129/2006

(I. D. 48/2002 of Industrial Tribunal , Kollam) Workman/Union : TheGeneral Secretary, Union Bank of India Employees ' Union (Kerala) , C/o Union Bank of India, Regional Office: M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram -695001 .

Adv. Shri M. S. Vijayachandra Babu Management:

The Assistant General Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office; M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram -695001 .

Adv . Shri K. S. Ajaya Ghosh

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to this court for adjudication . The reference is:

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in relation to their Chengannoor Branch in dismissing Shri K. K. Ravi , Daftary from service w.e.f. 31-3-2001 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

3986GI/06-15

113 2. Though notice was issuedto both sides the management alone entered appearance . Despite several chances afforded to the union to appear and conduct the case they failed to turn up. Therefore it has to be presumed that there is no subsisting dispute . The reference was made in2002.

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing Shri K. K. Ravi , Daftaryfrom service w.e.f. 31-3-2001 is justifiable . No cost.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 4thday ofDecember , 2006.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Management:

M1 -Domestic Enquiry File in r /o Shri K. K. Ravi .

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 57. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या मि. एप्पलिकेशन 05/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011 /3/2003- आई आर ( डी यू) ]... सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2006

S.O. 57. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. Misc . Appln . 05/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2006.

[No. L-40011/3/2003 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer Misc appln 05/2004 BETWEEN

TheOrg. Secretary Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, 96/196, Old Ganeshganj , Lucknow 114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16 , 1928

AND

The Asstt . General Manager (Admn. )

BSNL , Deptt . of Telecom, Gandhi Bhawan, Lucknow

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide its order No. L - 40011 / 3/2003 - IR ( DU) dated 29-5-2003 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the CGIT -cum - Labour Court, Lucknow :

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager , BSNL in not granting temporary status to Sri Jamsher S/ o Sh . Munna w.e.f. 1stMarch, 1992 and not regularising his services is just and legal ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?" Copy of the said order was endorsed to the Asstt . General Manager , BSNL , Deptt. of Telecom , Gandhi Bhawan , Lucknow and the trade union Organising Secretary, Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh, Lucknow.

The Organising Secretary was asked to file statement ofclaim complete with relevant documents list of reliance and witnesses within 15 days , but the Organising Secretary of the workman did not file the statement of claim , therefore the notice were issued to Organising Secretary and the same was served on 24-7-03 but the Organising Secretary did not file the statement of claim . Notices were issued to theAsstt . General Manager , BSNL, Lucknow, but the Asstt. General Manager has also not filed the written statement and therefore no claim award was passed on 15-12-03 which was notified on 23-12-2003 . The copy of the no claim award was sent to the Organising Secretary of trade union on 22-3-04.

Sri Ganga Vishnu Shukla Organising Secretary filed the application for restoration stating that on the date i.e. 15-12-03 the trade union could not file the statement of claim as the court passed no claim award at 12.30 . The Organising Secretary has himself stated that representative of the trade union was out of station in March , 2004 and he waited for the award till April , 2004. It is further alleged that when the worker's representative could not received the award till 2nd Sept. , 2004 he came to the Labour Court and got the information and thereafter he could obtain the copy of the award after filing draft . It is further stated that the worker could not get the copy of no claim award on 22nd Sept. , 2004 and therefore he filed the application.

The opposite party has objected to the application wherein opposite party has denied the allegations of the worker. It is submitted that as per law the application for restoration is to be moved within a period of30 days from the date of award and since the award was passed on 15-12-2003 and the restoration application was filed on 24-9-04, as such application is highly time barred.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Heard the argument of the parties present.

Learned representative of the opposite party has admitted that in the aforesaid case I.D. No. 63/03 both the parties did not file either statement of claim or written statement and he has no objection if the I.D. 63/03 is decided on merit after allowing the restoration application. However, in the circumstances of the case he has requested that the trade union should be ordered to file the statement ofclaim together with the documents and witness on which he relies so that I.D. 63/03 could be disposed of on merit as early as possible .

Trade union undertakes to file the statement of claim within a week, therefore the restoration application is allowed and the no claim award passed in reference order No. L-40011/3 /2003 - IR (DU ) dated 29-5-03 is set aside provided the trade union files the statement of claim within a period of one week together with the list of documents and list of witnesses . Accordingly this application is disposedof.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , PresidingOfficer LUCKNOW

1-12-2006

नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 58. - केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में , भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2647 , दिनांक26-6-2006 द्वारा कोयला उद्योग जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) को प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 4 में शामिल है । को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 28-6-2006 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 28-12-2006 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा. संख्या एस-11017/2/2003- आई आर( पी एल ) ] गुरजोत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 14th December , 2006 S.O. 58. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub - clause (vi ) of the clause [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

115

Versus

Respondent : The Branch Manager,

United Western Bank Ltd. , Branch Wani , Post & Tah . Wani , Dist . Yavatmal (M. S.)

AWARD

(n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2647 , dated 26-6- 2006 the service in the Coal Industry which is covered by item 4 of the First Schedule to the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose ofthe saidAct, for a period of six months from the 28th June, 2006.

Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period bya further period of six months .

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 28th December, 2006.

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Ram Narayanrao Daoo C/o Arun Raghunathji Thakre , Ward No. 4, Near Virani Talkies, Wani , Post & Tah . Wani , Dist. Yavatmal [ M. S. ] Party No. 1 and The Branch Manager, United Western Bank Ltd. Branch Wani , Post & Tah . Wani , Dist . Yavatmal [M. S. ] Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No.L- 12012/ 181/2003 [IR (B - 1 ) ] Dt. 30-10-2003 under clause ( d) ofSub- section ( 1 ) and Sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following Schedule.

[File No. S- 11017/2/2003 - IR (PL)] GURJOT KAUR, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2006

2. "Whether the action of the management ofUnited Western Bank Ltd. , in terminating the services of Shri Ram Narayanrao Daoo, M. S. D. Agent on 31-05-1996 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief applicant is entitled to ?" का.आ. 59.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटेड वेस्टर्न बैंक लि. 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 238/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/181/2003- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2006

3. The reference came for hearing before the Tribunal on 4-12-2006 . Today the petitioner is absent and on behalf of respondent its representative is present. It seems that the notices of this reference were issued to both the parties on 31-5-2005 . On behalf ofManagement its representative isattending the Court. However, the petitioner i.e.workman Party No. 2 never appeared before this Court either in response to the notice issued by the Ministry or a notice issued by this tribunal . Right from 31-5-2005 it is pending for filing the Statement of Claim and till today even the statement ofclaîm is not filed, though more than the year is lapsed. This indicates that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the reference as he is not attending the Court.Hence it is dispose of for his default and the reference is answer that the petitioner workman Party No. 1 Ramnarayan Daoo is not entitled for any relief and the action of the management is legal and proper .

Hence this award . Dated: 4-12-2006

S.O. 59. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 238/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Nagpur, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United Western Bank Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2006.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2006 [No. L- 12012/181/2003 - IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. NGP/238/2003

Dated:4-12-2006

Petitioner

का.आ, 60.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजक्तों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था। : Shri Ram Narayanrao Daoo C/o Arun Raghunathji Thakre, Ward No. 4, Near Virani Talkies , Wani , Post & Tah . Wani ,

Dist. Yavatmal (M.S. )

[सं. एल-12012/55/2000- आई. आर. ( जी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2006

read with rule 42 of the said Act . On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed by the workman that the action of the opposite party bank in terminating the services of the workman be held to be illegal and unjust and the workman be directed to be reinstated in the services of the bank with full back wages and all consequential benefits .

S.O. 60. In pursuance of Section 17 Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Kanpur, 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 workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2006.

[No. L- 12012/55/2000- IR (B - I ) )

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRISURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P.

Industrial Dispute No. 54 of 2000

Inthe matter of dispute between:

Sri Raj Bahadur Yadav, S/o Sh. Bhagwati Prasad Yadav, 11/11 Mayo Road, Allahabad

And

The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Varanasi.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide notification No. L- 12012/55/2000 /IR ( B - I ) dated 27-6-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Varanasi in terminating the services of Sri Raj Bahadur Yadav, Former messenger w.e.f. 11-8-99 is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief is the disputant entitled to ?"

3. The claim of the petitioner is contested by the opposite party on variety of grounds inter alia, it has been pleaded by the opposite party in their written statement that there never existed relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the opposite party bank and that the petitioner was independent person/ contractor having neither any supervision nor any control of the bank. The Petitioner is intending for back door employment in contravention of set rules and procedure for employment as in bank the employment (s ) are made by recruitment board after proper identification of the vacancies , advertisement in the news paper, written test/ interviews and preparation of select list/wait list . It is further pleaded by the opposite party bank that by seeking ancillary casual engagement of private courier and besides doing his other usual and routine vocations and economic activities etc. at other places unconnected with the bank he cannot be allowed to allege his status of being protected under Section 25F of the I. D. Act . The alleged petitioner has never been under the bank's discipline and control including the time, hours and or manner performance/non- performance etc. nor were terms and conditions of service of the Bank applicable to him . It is also pleaded that messengers namely S /Sri Kallu Singh . Kabir Das and Smt . Asha Devi were already working with the I. T. I. Complex Branch of the bank during the period alleged claimant has reised his claim as such the claim is false baseless and liable to be dismissed . It has also been pleaded that the alleged engagement during the period 1-9-88 to 28-11-88 i.e. only for 89 days came to an end by the expiry of time fixed for the said casual engagement as such it does not fall within the term retrenchment and otherwise also the same cannot be considered to be continuous service in terms of Section 25- B of the Act . Apart from it the petitioner has availed chance under the bipartite settlement entered into between the bank and recognised union, he was interviewed and was placed at serial No. 202 in the panel to be utilised as and when vacancy arose within the period specified in the settlement .

4. On merit it has been pleaded by the opposite party that the petitioner was engaged for 89 days as a temporary messenger during the period 1-9-88 to 28-11-88 at bank's Shakti Nagar Branch and his engagement was for fixed term which came to an end by efflux of time as the engagement was not extended. The opposite party bank denied the working of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has concealed the material facts as to on which date he joined the branch at Naini ITI Complex Branch of the bank. The bank has alleged that after 10-8-99 the 2. The case in short of the workman is that he is a bonafide and permanent employee of the opposite party as messenger w.e.f. 1-9-88 and his last drawn salary was Rs . 750 per month . The petitioner came into employment of the opposite party after interview and he was posted at bank's Sonebhadra Branch where he worked upto 28-11-88 and thereafter he worked at bank's branch situate at ITI Complex , Naini , Allahabad . It has been alleged that the services of the petitioner were dispensed by the opposite party bank without any reason w.e.f. 11-8-99 . The action ofthe management while terminating the services of the petitioner orally is illegal and without jurisdiction. The action of the opposite party bank is further illegal in as much as opposite party did not comply with the provisions of Sections 25 - F and 25 -G of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 117

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6 , 2007/पौष 16 , 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

services to the opposite party bank as pleaded by the bank or he was working as a messenger with the opposite party bank upto 11-8-99 as pleaded by the petitioner and it has also to be seen as to whether the termination of the services is legal and just or not.

petitioner was not given the private courier work, therefore , there was no occassion to terminate the services of the petitioner as alleged by him . It is further alleged by the opposite party that the opposite party bank has full authority to engage or disengage the private courier services rendered by the contractual person. It has also been pleaded by the opposite party bank that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Allegations of Unfair Labour practice has also been denied by the opposite party bank . The petitioner has no right or authorityto claim any post under the opposite party bank and his prayer for reinstatement is without any basis . On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed that the claim of the petitioner is devoid of merit and be rejected.

5. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the petitioner but nothing new has been pleaded in it except reiterating the facts already alleged/pleaded by him in his statement of claim .

6. After exchange of pleadings between the parties , parties have lead oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and counter claims . Whereas the petitioner himself has examined as W. W. 1 . opposite party bank has examined its officer by name Sh . P. N. Dubey, Chief Manager , as M. W..1 .

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the contesting parties at length and have also perused the material and cvidence available on record.

10. It has been argued by the representative forthe opposite party bank that the petitioner was rendering courier services on contractual basis to the opposite party bank. The opposite party bank has filed documents per list dated4-6-2001 in support of their contention which were marked as Ext. M.1/ 1 to M.1 /4 and M.2/ 1 to M.2/20 , M.3/ 1 to M.3/3 and M.4/4 to M. 7. , Ext . M. 1 to Ext . M.1 /4 are the attendance register of bank's Shakti Nagar Branch which indicates that the petitioner had worked as a messenger as alleged and admitted by the opposite party bank. Ext . M. 2/1 to Ext. M.2/20 are the vouchers through which the petitioner claimant was paid his wages at the rate of Rs . 750 per month. The language used in these payment vouchers is one and the same to the effect that the workman has been paid charges for carrying the dak of the I. T. I. Complex Branch, Naini to State Bank of India, Main Branch, Allahabad. These payments vouchers are for the months of December, 97, Janaury 98 , Feb. 98 , April , 98 , May 98 , June 98, July 98, August 98 , September 98 , Oct. 98 , Nov. 98 , Dec. 98, Jan. 99, Feb. 99 , March 99 , April 99 , May 99, June 99 , July 99, August 99. These payment vouchers are further indicative of the fact that workman has been paid his wages monthwise . From these vouchers itstands established that the petitioner workman worked continuously without any break from December , 1997 to August, 1999 i.e. much more than 240 days in cach calendar year . It is also established that the services rendered by the workman falls within the ambit of Section 25 - B i . c . 'Continuous Service ' under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

8. It has been contended by the representative for the opposite party bank that there never existed any relationship of employer and employee between the bank and the petitioner, therefore , question of terminating the services ofthe petitioner and applicability of the provisions of Industrial.Disputes Act, 1947, does not arise . On the contrary it has been contended by the authorised rep. for the workman that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties as will be evident from the own pleadings of the opposite party bank . After going through the pleadings of the opposite party bank, tribunal finds substance in the arguments advanced by the representative for the workman/petitioner. Opposite party bank in para 7 of their reply under leading of preliminary objection has clearly admitted the engagement of the petitioner for 89 days as temporary /ad học basis during the period 1-9-88 to 28-11-88 and has also admitted the fact that the said engagement came to an end by efflux oftime . In view of admitted position as above , it is held that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the opposite party bank and the petitioner/claimant . Therefore, the point is decided against the opposite party bank and in favour of the petitioner/claimant.

11. Workman in his statement on oath before the tribunal has stated that he was engaged as messenger on 1-9-88 at bank's Shakti Nagar Branch where he worked continuously upto 28-11-88 . Workman has further stated that he worked with the opposite party bank at its Naini Branch at Allahabad upto 10-8-99 , whereafter bank had terminated his services for which no written orders were issued in his favour . He has also stated that the work of messenger is of permanent nature . After termination of his services opposite party engaged Smt . Rani Devi at the post ofmessenger at Bank's I.T.I.. Naini Branch who was junior to him . He has also stated that he worked continuously and that no notice , notice pay. in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to him at the time oftermination of his service by the opposite party bank. He has also stated that at the time of termination of his services he was being paid Rs . 750 per month . In his cross examination the witness has admitted that no appointment letter was given to him . He has also admitted the fact that the period during which he worked with Naini branch of 9. Next it will be seen as to what was the status of the petitioner as to whether he was rendering a courier

3986GI/06-16 118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

the bank has not been mentioned by him in his statement of claim . Witness has denied the suggestion that he worked as courier during the period 1-11-97 to 10-8-99 and that had not worked as a messenger . Witness has further denied the suggestion of the bank that during the said period no work of messenger was taken by the bank. He has also admitted that regular messengers were used to get their salary at Rs . 3900 per month whereas he used to be paid Rs. 750 per month . Being afraid of the fact that he would be terminated he did not lodge any complaint before the higher officers of the bank . Witness has also denied the fact that he did not work for 240 days continuously .

12. M.W. 1 management witness Sri P. N. Dubey in his examination in chief on oath has admitted that he remained posted as I.T.I. Complex Branch, Naini as Branch Manager during the period 17-1-99 to 22-6-2006 . Petitioner rendered courier service in the branch during the period 1-11-97 to 10-8-99 . The petitioner used to be paid his courier charges through bills submitted by him originals of which has been brought by him photocopies of which is already onrecord , which has been marked as Ext . M 1 to Ext . M. 7 . Petitioner was not appointed as messenger and on contractual basis workman was paid wages . Witness has denied the suggestion that petitioner was working at some other branch as messenger and from where he was transferred to Naini Branch of the bank . Witness has also denied the suggestion that the petitioner had ever worked as messenger at the branch or had ever completed 240 days of continuous services . In his cross examination the witness has admitted that the branch of the bank falls under Region IV of Zonal Office , Varanasi . Witness has denied the suggestion that the petitioner workman was ever engaged/ appointed as messenger and that he was paid Rs . 750 per month as wages . After 10-8-99 the courier services were taken by one Shiva Kanti .

13. After giving anxious considerations to the above evidence of the parties oral as well as documentary the tribunal do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the representative for the opposite party bank that the petitioner was engaged on contract basis to provide courier services . No such written contract on record. Even otherwise now a days it is a matter of common knowledge that charges for courier services are based on article wise whereas from the payment vouchers filed by the opposite party bank Ext . M. 2/1 to M. 2/20 it is quite obivious that the workman was paid his wages for the whole month at Rs . 750. If it is so, from the evidence available on record, tribunal is of the firm opinion that the language used in the payment voucher cannot change the character of the workman to treat him as courier service provider instead for all intent and practical purposes workman would be deemed to have worked as messenger . Witness W.W. 1 Sri Raj Bahadur Yadav in his cross examination has clearly denied the suggestion put by the bank that he was providing courier service to the bank and

۱۰

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] was not working as messenger . It settled principle of law that oral agreement has no meaning in the eye of law unless the same is incorporated into writing between the parties . From this point of view and also that no such written agreement by means of which it was agreed upon between the parties that the workman will provide courier serviceto the bank, is available on record the tribunal is unable to believe the case as set up by the opposite party bank that the workman was providing courier services to the bank on contract basis . As against it workman has been able to establish his case beyond all reasonable doubt that he had worked with the opposite party bank as messenger at bank's I.T.I. Complex Branch situate at Naini , Allahabad, during the period 1-11-97 to 10-8-99.

14. Having concluded that the workman had worked as messenger during the period 1-11-97 to 10-8-99 at bank's Naini Branch at Allahabad now it will be seen if the termination of the services of the workman w.e.f. 11-8-99 is in breach of provisions of Section 25 -F of Industrial Disputes Act and 25G of the Act. The workman in his evidence has categorically admitted the fact that at the time of termination of his services he was neither given any notice , notice pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation as provided under Section 25F of I.D. Act . No cross examination of the workman on this point has been done by the opposite party bank to controvert the evidence of the workman . In the absence of cross examination on this point, the evidence of the workman goesuncontroverted. Under these circumstances , tribunal isleft with no option but to hold that the termination of the services of the workman by the bank w.e.f. 11-8-99 is neither legal nor justified and the same is in breach of the provisions of Sec . 25 -F of I.D. Act , the workman is thus entitled for his reinstatement in the services of the opposite party at the place from which he was retrenched. Workman has not adduced any evidence to effect that during the period when he remained out of employment he was not gainfully employed . Since the workman failed to discharge his obligation on this point he cannot be held entitled for. wages for the period he remained out of employment.

15. Management witness in his cross examination has clearly admitted that after 10-8-99 some Shiva Kanti at the place of workman. In view of clear admission by the witness of the management it is held that the termination of the services of the workman is also in breach of provisions ofSection 25 -H of I.D. Act .

16. For the reasons explained above , termination of the services of the workman by the bank w.e.f. 11-8-99 is held tobe illegal and unjust. Workman shall not be entitled for any back wages as no evidence has been adduced by him that he was not gainfully employed during the period he remained out of employment except for his reinstatement.

17. Reference is answered accordingly.

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer 119

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष 16, 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2006

to 14-9-96 continuously at the post of chaprasi-cum- messenger whereafter his services were terminatedby the opposite party bank in breach of the provisions of the IndustrialDisputesAct, 1947, therefore workman is entitled tobe reinstated in the services at the post from which he was terminated. It is also the common ground that the workmanduring the period ofhis epaployment was paidhis wages at the rate ofRs . 25/- per day.

का.आ. 61 , औद्योगिक विबाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार किसान ग्रामीण 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 117/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/269/97- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2006

S.O. 61. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( 117/98) of theCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kisan Gramin Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2006.

[No.L- 12012/269/97 - IR (B -1) ]

AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

3. It has been pleaded by the workman that he performed the regular duties of a peon in the bank during thetenurehe served the bank . At the time of his termination from the services of the bank he had already completed much more than240 days of continuous service still neither anynotice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation was paid by the bank therefore the same amounts to retrenchment in the eye of law which is neither legal nor justified . Beside above it has also been pleaded by the workmanthat several juniors and fresh hands were retained inthe service of the bank while he was terminated from the services of the bank, therefore , workman was entitled for theprotection ofSection 25F, 25G and 25H of I.D. Act 1947. Inanywaythe action of the management cannot be held to be legal and workman has prayed to be reinstated in the services ofthebank with full back wages and continuity of serviceand all consequential benefits.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA

NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P.

Industrial Dispute No. 117/98

Inthe matter of dispute between:

Sri Sunil Kumar son of Netra Pal Patparganj , Post Ujhani District Badaun U. P.

AND

Management of Kisan Gramin Bank,

Hazaratpur,

DistrictBadaun

AWARD

1. Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 269/97- IR (B - I )dated 30-6-98 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

4.On the contrary the claim of the workman has been contested by the opposite party which has filed a detailed reply against the claim of the workman alleging thatthe services of the workman were utilised as a daily wager onneed basis for which charges have been paid to theworkman . Bank has admitted the fact that the workman was engaged by the bank for casual work only Branch manager inhis name was withdrawing the amount formaking paymenttothe workman for his wages workman was never paidhis wages directly in his name by the bank. Workman neverheld any regular and permanent post in the bank nor he was ever required to mark his attendance in the attendance register maintained for regular and permanent bank employees . Workman was never appointed by the bank against any post after interview and selection process therefore workman cannot claim any right of his reinstatement in the services of the bank by any strech of imagination . Since workman has never been issued any appointment letter question of his termination from the services of the bank does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case . On the basis of above pleadings it has beenprayed that the action of the management be held legal and valid by holding that the workman is not entitled forany relief as claimedby him in the present case.

Kya Kisan Gramin Bank Hazaratpur Badaun Ke Prabandhan Dwara Sunil Kumar Putra Sri Netrapal Ko Dinank 16-9-96 Se Sewa Se Nishkasit Karna VaidyaVa Nyayochit Hai ? Yadi Nahi To KarnakarKis Anutosh Ka Adhikari Hai Tatha Kis Tithi Se?

5, After exchange of pleadings between the parties thecontestingparties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. Whereas workman examined himself as W.W. 1 management examined its officer as M.W. 1 .

2. It is common ground that the workman Sunil Kumar worked with the opposite party bank w.e.f. 25-9-95 [PART II-SBC . 3( ii)] 120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

notification of Sec . 25-F ofAct . The resultant effect is that the workman is held entitled to be reinstated in service of thebank with full back wages continuity of service and all consequential benefits .

10. Reference is answered accordingly in favour of the workman and against the opposite party bank.

6. Workman vide application dated 3-6-2004 duly supported with affidavit has filed certain photocopies of the documents and had summoned the originals of the same from the management . In due course of time the management original of document which is letter addressed tothe Chairman of the bank on 4-3-97 by the branch manager ofthebranch where the workman was working .

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2006

7. Heard the arguments of the contesting parties at length and have also perused the record of the case carefully.

का.आ. 62.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर 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 63/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/503/98- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2006

S.O. 62. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (63/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum - Labour Court, Kanpur, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2006.

[No. L- 12012/503/98 - IR (B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 63 of 99

Inthe matter of dispute between:

Sri Rajeev Sharma

S/ o Sh . J. P. Sharma

C/o Sri Inder Mohan Bhalla House No. 117/138 Kakadeo, Kanpur .

AND

8. It has been contended by the authorised representative for the workman that the workman during the above period had rendered much more than 240 days of continuous service and therefore the service rendered by the workman falls within the ambit of Section 25 -B of I.D.Act, 1947 , therefore it was obligatory on the part ofthe management to have honoured the provisions of Section 25-F of I.D. Act and non compliance of the same would entail the action of the management to be illegal unjust and unfair in the eye of law . As against it has been contended. bythe management representative that since the workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wages according to need basis and since there was no appointment letter in his favour, therefore, there was no requirement on the part of management to have followed the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act as his case is not covered under the provisions of Sec . 25-B of the Act . After considering the rival contention of the parties in the light of document dated4-3-98 purported to have been written by the branch manager to the chairman of the bank indicating the fact that the workman concerned during the period 30-9-95 to14-9-96had worked for a total number of days about 285 days and that he was paid in all Rs . 7125 /- as his wages at the rate of Rs . 25/- per day . It was also indicated by the branch manager in the said letter that whatever was the correct position regarding the concerned workman that was narrated in the letter . Workman in his evidence on oath made before this tribunal has also corroborated the above facts . Fact regarding continuous working during periodAugust, 95 to September , 96 has also been admitted bythe management witness in his evidence made on oath before the tribunal . Thus it stands proved beyond doubt that the workman worked in the bank much more than 240 days of continuous service . It has also been stated by the workman that he was neither paid any notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation at the time of his termination by the bank which amounts to retrenchment, against law.

The General Manager (Operations) StateBank ofBikaner & Jaipur HeadOffice , TilakMarg, Jaipur.

AWARD

1. CentralGovernment, Ministry ofLabour, NewDelhi , vide notification No. L- 12012/503/98 - IR(B -I) dated 22-3-99 9. For the reasons discussed above , the tribunal is of the firm opinion that the termination from service of workman by the opposite party bank is a retrenchment against law which has not been followed by payment of notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation, from this point of view the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman from the bank cannot be held to be just fair and legal is the same is in 121

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16 , 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur in terminating the services of Sri Rajeev Sharma w.e.f. 21-7-87, peon, Ratanlal Nagar City Branch Kanpur and not giving him permanent employment as per the directions of Ministry of Finance Govt. of India is legal and justified ? Ifnot towhat reliefthe workman is entitled to?

temporary employees in banks which means a workman who has been appointed for a limited period of work which is of an essentially temporary nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with the temporary increase of work of permanent nature and includes a workman other than permanent workman who is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular permanent workman. It is admitted by the bank that the workman was appointed in a temporary capacityas a temporary peon and he worked there only for 80days. Therefore his automatic termination of serviceby way of non renewal and not extension of his term of employment was legal and justified. Bank has also admitted that the workman worked upto 20-7-87 and he was not engaged w.e.f. 21-7-87 . It has also been alleged that there is no illegality in the action of the management if the workmanhas not been engaged w.e.f. 21-7-87.

4. Workman has also filed rejoinder in support of his claim but nothing new has been mentioned there except reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in his stateinent ofclaim.

2.Workman's case in short is that provision of sec . 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, provides method of retrenchment and provision of25- H ofthe I.D. Act provides that a retrenched employee should be given preference before inducting fresh hands in the employment and this provision is also supported by Rule 78 of I.D. (Central) Rules, 1957. Sec . 25-F also provide payment of 15days pay to such workers who has completed 240 days of continuous service within the meaning of provision 25- B of the Act. Thosewho have not completed 240 days in a calendar year are not entitled to get retrenchment compensation but provision of Sec . 25-H of I.D. Act, 1947, do not provide any such rider i.e. completion of 240 days continuous service for attracting the benefit of Sec . 25-H of the Act.

5.After exchange of pleadings between the parties workman appeared in witness box , and adduced his evidence in support of his claim beside filing documentary evidence. Management was given repeated opportunity toadduce their evidence but when they failed to avail the opportunitygranted by the tribunal for adducing evidence, management was debarred from evidence . Thereafter management moved application for recalling order by means of which they were debarred but that application toowas rejectedby the tribunal . Ultimately, the authorised representative for the bank made an endorsement on 13-9-05 in the order sheet to the effect that the management shall not adduce any oral evidence after the order bywhich management was debarred from adducing oral evidence was recalled vide order dated 29-4-04 by the tribunal on payment of costof Rs . 200.

Ithas further been alleged by the workman that for getting reemployment u/s 25H ofthe Act, it is not necessary that there should be a regular and permanent post lying vacant under the employer but it is mandatory upon the employer to have called for reemployment to retrenched workers before appointing or engaging fresh hands . This provision is applicable to all categories ofworkers viz casual worker, daily rated worker, temporary worker and regular workers . It has been alleged by the workman that he was appointed by the opposite party vide appointment letters issued to him from time to time and after terminating his services opposite party appointed fresh person by name Sri Sudarshan Singh to work in place ofworkman without providing any opportunity of reemployment. Thus the provisions of Section 25 -H-of I. D. Act, 1947 read with Rule 78 of 1.D.Rules ( Central), 1957 have beenbreachedby the opposite party bank. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the workman that he be reinstated in service with full backwages and all consequential benefits .

6.Workman has filed original appointment letters issued to himby the opposite party which has been marked asExt.M. 1 dated 2-5-87, Ext . M. 2 dated 22-5-87, Ext . M. 3 dated 11-6-87and Ext.M -4 dated 11-7-87 . Workman has also filed copy of appointment letter dated 25-11-87 issued in favour of one Sudarshan Singh who is also alleged to have appoiuted after the termination of the services of the workman . Ext . M- 5 is working certificate dated 27-8-87 issued by the bank in favour of the workman indicating that the workman worked in the bank durring he period 25. 87 to 20-7-87 as temporary peon in bank's RatanLal Branch at Kanpur.

7. Workman examined himself as W.W. 1. In his examination in chief made on oath before the tribunal the witness has admitted that he was appointed at the post of clerk and worked during the period 2-5-87 to 21-7-87. Witness has admitted the fact that he was not issued any orderinwriting for termination ofhis services by the bank. Witness has further admitted that after terminating his 3. In the written statement filed by the opposite party it has been denied that the provisions of Section 25-H. of the Act are applicable in the case of the workman. Theoppositeparty bank has admitted the alleged working ofthe workman in the bank . It has also been pleaded that the claim ofthe workman is stale one inasmuch as workman has raised the dispute after 11 years from the date of termination of his services without giving satisfactory explanation forthe delaytherefore the claim of the applicant is liable to be rejected on this ground alone . It has also been pleaded by the opposite party that the provisions of Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 are applicable in the bank and according to para 20.7 of the same defines 122

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6 , 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

remains uncontroverted . Therefore beliving the uncontroverted evidence it is held that the appointment of the workman was made against clear and permanent vacancy of peon and this fact further finds support from the evidence of the workman that one Amar Bahadur who wasappointed in the same fashion in which workmanwas appointed was made regular and permanent by the oppsite partyon the same post from which workman was terminated without providing the workman any opportunity of re- employment . The above practice adopted by the. management bank has been defined as Unfair Labour Practice as defined under the provisions of Sec. 2(ra) of I. D. Act and also appears to be against the rules ofnaturaljustice. The opposite party bank cannot be permitted under the fact and circumstances of the case to utilize the services of workmen under the Garb of Section 2(oo) (bb) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which clearly fallswithin the ambit ofSection 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

services bank appointed several persons at the same post for 80 days . Witness has further stated that after termination of his service Munna Lal and Amar Bahadur were engaged out of whom Amar Bahadur is still working as permanent employee of the bank . Bank has never informed him in writing for his re -employment in the service of the bank . In his cross examination witness has repeated the same thing which has been deposed to by him in his examination in chief. However, witness has expressedhis ignorance about the fact that recruitment in the bank are made through Recruitment Board. Witness has admitted the fact that now he knows that appointments are made through recruitment board and that the bank had notified the post in newspapers and he moved an application through Board for his appointment in the bank but he was not called for any test nor he ever informed by the bank in this regard. Witness has denied, the suggestion that after termination of his service no regular and temporary post was there in the bank . Witness has also admitted that duringthe period of his employment he discharged all such workofpeon.

8.Heard the arguments of the contesting parties at length, tribunal also exemined the evidence and material available on record carefully.

11. It has been contended by the representative for the management that the termination of services ofthe workman is not a retrenchment within the meaning of Section2(oo)(bb) of the Act therefore he is not entitled for the protection of the same and is also not entitled for all reliefas claimedby him . The tribunal is of the firm opinion thatprovisions of Section 2(00) (bb) of I. D. Act, 1947 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case for the reasons shown above as the evidence of the workman on the point of unfair labour practice goes uncontroverted and the workman has been successfully able to substantiate his claim by means of his oral as well as documentary evidence that management has breached theprovisions ofSec. 25- H of the Act read with rules 78 of I.D. (Central) Rules , 1957 .

9. From the documentary as well as oral evidence of the workman coupled with the admission of the fact that the workman was employed on temporary basis it stands established that the workman worked temporary as a peon in the bank during the period in question for 80 days and that he was paid his wages in accordance with scale of pay together with usual admissible allowances . It is also proved from his evidence (W.W. 1) that Sri Munna Lal , Amar Bahadur and Sudarshan Singh were appointed as peon in the service of bank after termination of the services of the workman and out of them workman by name Amar Bahadur was made permanent . Management representative has miserably faild to bring out from the mouth of the witness that Amar Bahadur had not been made permanent on the post of peon who was admittedly appointed after the termination of the services of the workman. From the oral evidence of the workman it is also clear that the bank was inthe habit of appointing workman after workman for fixed period on the post of peon .

12. On the contrary representative for the workman hasplaced reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt of India in the case of Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Co-operative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Limited and other 1999 (82) FLR 137 to rebutthe contention of the authorised representative for the management that the claim of the workman should be rejected because of delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the law cited above has held that relief under the I.D.Act cannot be denied merely one the ground of delay. Plea if raised it is tobe proved by showing the real prejudice and no reference can generally be questioned on the ground of delayalone. From the record and evidence of the case it is quite clear that the management has neither lead any evidence nor has adduced any evidence on the point of delayinraising the dispute. Heavy burden in view ofthe law laiddown by the Hon'ble Supreme Court lies uponthe management and since the management has failed to discharge their obligation on the point of delay tribunal is unable to accept the contention of the representative for theopposite party bank.

10. From the various appointment, orders issued in favour of the workman it is not at all clear that as to under whose place the workman was engaged or as to how vacancy was created in the branch i . e . due to retirement of permanent employee, transfer of employee to another place, or vacancy caused on account of death of some employee. Even no suggestion was given to the workman in his crossexamination by the represenative for the management that he was appointed due to increase of temporary work or temporary increase of permanent nature of work or against vacancy caused by absence of permanent employce . Thus the evidence of the workman on this point 123 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 6, 2007/पौष16, 1928

observations made by this tribunal in the foregoing paras ofthis award.

17.Reference is answered accordingly in favour of theworkman and against the opposite party KtateBank ofBikaner& Jaipur.

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer. नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.अ. 63. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रेलवे इलेक्ट्रीफिकेशन प्रोजक्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/274/95- आई. आर. (बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2006

S.O. 63. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (114/2002) of theCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Railway Electrification Project and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2006.

13.The representative for the workman has further place reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Union of India and others reported in 1997(76) FLR 393, wherein the Hon'ble Court hasheld after interpreting the provisions of Section 25-H of theAct read with rules 78 that in case of retrenchment before vacancies are to be filled employer was under a legal obligation to give notice to workmen to offer thmselves for reemployment. Rule does not create any distinctionbetween temporary or permanent employee. It has further been held by the Hon'ble High Court in the case(supra) after terminating the employment of the workmen, again temporary hands were engaged ignoring their claim, thus the petitioner committed breach ofSection 25-Hof the Act. The tribunal is fully in agreement with the contention of the authorised representative for the workman that the oppsite party in the case of workman hascommitted serious breach ofSection25 -H of Industrial DisputesAct, 1947. read with rule 78 and also agrees with the contention that the law laid down by the Hon'bleHigh Court, Allahabad , is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case which is obsolutely analogous to the facts and circumstances of the law cited by the workman. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party bank discharged this legal obligation createdby Sec . 25- H read with Rule 78 before making fresh appointments/ recruitment on the post either on temporary or permanent basis. In the circumstances the breach of Section 25-H of the Act has been fully established and the workman could be held entitled for the reliefclaimed.

[No.L- 12012/274/95- IR (B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT, CUM -LABOUR COURT : NAGPUR

Case No. NGP/114/2002

Nagpur, the4th December, 2006 14. The representative for the bank has misrably failed to establish its claim before the tribunal by way of adducing documentary or oral evidence despite availing ofrepeated opportunities granted to them by the tribunal, therefore, the tribunal has no hesitation in holding that the actionofthe opposite party bank in terminating the services ofthe concerned workman is highly bad in law being in breach of provisions of Section 25-H of the I. D. Act , 1947 , read together with Rule 78 of I.D. (Central) Rules 1957.

Petitioner

: Shri PramodDadaji Atram, C/oNilkantMohghar, Shivaji Ward No. 4, Tah. &P. Tukum , Dist. Chandrapur. Versus

Respondent

15. For the reasons discussed above , the workman shall be entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits w. e . f. 21-7-1987 as the action of the management in terminating the services ofthe workman from the above date is held to be illegal. , unfair and unjust being in breach of provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947, as discussed above .

: The ChiefGeneral Telecom, Railway Electrification Project, 46, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur -440010 . AWARD

16. So far as the claim of the workman relates to regularising his service as permanent employee is concerned it does not come within the domain of this tribunal therefore the workman cannot be granted any relief inthis regard and the same is left to vegaries of the opposite party bank to consider the claim of regularisation of the services of the workman according to law and in view of

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Pramod Dadaji Atram Party No. 1 and The Chief General Telecom, Railway Electrification Project, 46, Bajaj Nagar , Nagpur-440 010 Nagpur PartyNo. 2 referred the same for adjudication to [PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 6, 2007/PAUSA 16, 1928

124

this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L- 12012/274 /95 Dt . 04-03-1997 under clause (d) of Sub section ( 1 ) & ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

2. "Whether the termination of service of Shri Pramod Dadaji Atram, Ex- casual mazdoor under the Chief General Manager , Rly. Electrification Project, Circle, Nagpur with effect from 01-07-1988 is legal or illegal ? If illegal , whether the workmen entitled for back wages and other attendant benefits , reinstatement or not ?"

parties to remain present were issued by the Tribunal . The management is served and appeared in response to the notice . However , neither the petitioner nor his representative is present on the date, which was fixed i.e. on 11-10-2006. A letter sent to the petitioner on the address givenby him before A.L.C. and which is recorded in the reference order , however the annual of returned with endorsement that "THE ADDRESS IS INSUFFICIENT. " Now it has become difficult even to know the address of the petitioner there is nobody who will even give the address of the petitioner today also a case was fixed for the appearance of the petitioner or at least submitting a correct address nobody appeared and there is nobody to give a correct address also. In such circumstances no purpose will be served even keeping the dispute alive. Hence it is disposed of for default of the petitioner . It was necessary to him to give a correct address and to appear at least in response to the summons issued to him by the ALCE . There are no reason to continue the claim, today the petitioner is absent and the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly I dismissed it. Hence the award will return to the Ministry with reply that the petition ofthe petitioner is dismissed for his default and my answer to the schedule is in a negative . The disputes stands dismissed. Hence this award.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated:04-12-2006.

3. The claim came up to hearing before this tribunal on 04-12-2006 i.e. today . The respondent's representative is present, however Nobody is appearing for the petitioner workmen PartyNo. 2. It appears that originallly the disputes was referred to the Tribunal at Jabalpur. And it was received to it on 10-03-1997 . There is nothing on record indicating that the notice was issued to Petitioner. However , the letter from the Ministry indicates that they had issued a letter to the petitioner directing him to file the Statement ofClaim within a 15 days from the date of the receipt of it . The Statement of Claim was to file before CGIT Jabalpur. However, there is no record to show that he attended the CGIT Jabalpur . Later on consequent upon the establishment of this Tribunal at Nagpur the reference was transferred to this Tribunal . The notices directing the

Printedby the Manager, Govt . of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.