This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्रीसं. डी. एल. (एन ) -04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्रााधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 11]

नई दिल्ली, मार्च 11- मार्च 17, 2007 , शनिवार/फाल्गुन 20-फाल्गुन 26, 1928 NEW DELHI, MARCH 11-MARCH 17, 2007, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 20- PHALGUNA 26, 1928 No. 11 ]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II- खण्ड 3 - उप-खण्ड (ii) PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii)

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

सारणी

अधिकारी का पदनाम

सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियां और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2007

(2)

(1)

दीघा, पटना , बिहार राज्य में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल के अथवा इसके द्वारा या इसकी ओर से पट्टे पर लिए गए परिसर।

कार्यालय पुलिस महानिरीक्षक , केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल, बिहार सैक्टर के कार्यालय में अपर पुलिस उप-

महानिरीक्षक ( संभरण तथा

लेखा)।

[फा. सं. ए- II- 1/2007- प्रशा. - 1 ( दीघा ) - गृह

मंत्रालय-पीएफ- III ]

एच. काम सुआनथांग , अवर सचिव का.आ. 750.- सार्वजनिक स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा , नीचे दी गई सारणी के कालम ( 1 ) में वर्णित अधिकारी को सरकार का राजपत्रित अधिकारी होने के नाते उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है तथा यह निदेश भी देती है कि उक्त अधिकारी उक्त सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के संबंध में अपने क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अथवा उसके द्वारा सम्पदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा तथा सौंपे गए कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेगा:-

(1509)

719G1/2007 1510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26 , 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 8th February, 2007

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofRevenue)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE)

Salem, the 1st March , 2007 No. 01/2007 -CUSTOMS ( NT) S.O. 750.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ), the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1) of the Table below, being gazetted officer of the Government, to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act, and further directs that the said officer shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on estate officers by or under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction , in respect of public premises specified in column(2) of the said Table .

TABLE

Designation of the Officer

Categories of the public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

S.O. 751. In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned, vide Notification No. 33/94 -CUS ( NT) dated 1st July, 1994 , by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , New Delhi under clause ( a) of section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962, I, S. Ramesh , Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise . Salem, herebydeclare Survey No. 73/ 1A, Door No. 2/245 , Giddampatti Village , Palacode Taluk in Dharampuri District of Tamilnadu State , to be a warehousing Station under section 9 of the Customs Act 1962, for the purpose of setting up of 100 % Export Oriented Unit, as approved by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry , Department of Commerce, Madras Export Processing Zone , Chennai .

Premises belonging to, or taken on lease , by or on behalf of, the Central Reserve Police Force at Digha , Patna in the State of Bihar .

Additional Deputy InspectorGeneral of Police (Provision and Accounts) in the office ofInspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector .

[F. No. C. No. VIII/ 40/01/2007 -Cus . Pol .] S. RAMESH, Commissioner ( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 6 मार्च, 2007

[F.No. A- II- 1/2007 -Adm. - I (Digha )-MHA - PF. III] H. KAM SUANTHANG, Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग)

( सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) सेलम, 1 मार्च, 2007 संख्या 01/2007-सीमा शुल्क ( एन.टी. )

का.आ. 752. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1980 के खण्ड 9 के उपखण्ड ( 2) ( क ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड (ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्तं शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री टी. रवीन्द्रनाथ , कंप्यूटर आपरेटर, आन्ध्रा बैंक , प्रधान कार्यालय , हैदराबाद को आन्ध्रा बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड के कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है। वे नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए और उसके बाद विधिवत् रूप से उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति तक या उनके आन्ध्रा बैंक के कर्मकार कर्मचारी बने रहने तक या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, इस पद पर बने रहेंगे बशर्ते वे लगातार छः वर्ष से अधिक अवधि के लिए इस पद पर नहीं रहेंगे ।

[फा. सं. 15/8/2006- आईआर ] रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

(Department of EconomicAffairs) (BANKING DIVISION) New Delhi , the 6th March , 2007 का.आ. 751. -सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 खण्ड ( ए ) को अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली के दिनांक 1 जुलाई, 1994 की अधिसूचना सं. 33/94-सीमा शुल्क ( एन.टी. ) के अधीन अधोहस्ताक्षरी को प्रत्यायोजित शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं , एस. रमेश , आयुक्त, सीमा शुल्क एवं केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, सेलम एतदृद्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य, धर्मपुरी जिला, पालकोड तालुक के गीड्डमपट्टी ग्राम के सर्वे सं. 73/ 1 अ , डोर सं. 2/245 को सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत 100% निर्यातोन्मुख एक्क ( ई.ओ.यू. ) के गठन के उद्देश्य से भाण्डागरण स्टेशन के रूप में घोषित करता हूं, जैसा कि वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय , वाणिज्य विभाग , मद्रास निर्यात प्रक्रिया क्षेत्र , चेन्नई द्वारा अनुमोदित है।

[फा. सं.- VIII/40/01/2007- सीमा शुल्क नीति ]

एस. रमेश, आयुक्त

S.O. 752. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause( e) of the Sub- section (3 ) of section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1980 read with Sub- clause (2) ( a ) of Clause 9 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme , 1980, the Central Government hereby 1511 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

महासचिव, केनरा बैंक अधिकारी संघ को केनरा बैंक के निदेशक बोर्ड में अधिकारी कर्मचारी- निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है। वे नियुक्ति की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि तक अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी को नामित किए जाने तक या उनके केनरा बैंक के अधिकारी बने रहने तक या अगले आदेश होने तक , जो भी पहले हो, इस पद पर बने रहेंगे बशर्ते वे लगातार छः वर्ष से अधिक अवधि के लिए इस पद पर नहीं रहेंगे।

[फा. सं. 9/19/2001- बीओ -1 ] appoints Shri T. Ravindranath, Computer Operator, Andhra Bank, Head Office , Hyderabad as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Andhra Bank for a period of three years from the date of his appointment and thereafter until his successor is duly appointed or till he ceasesto be aworkman employee of Aridhra Bank or until further orders , whichever is carliest, provided that he shall not hold office continuously for a period exceeding six years .

[F. No. 15/8/2006- IR]

जी. बी. सिंह , उप- सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th March, 2007

RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 753.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम , 1970 के खण्ड 9 के उपखण्ड ( 2 ) ( क ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड (ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा श्री रामेश्वर प्रसाद , विशेष सहायक , बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , बी.सी.पी. मार्ग , पटना शाखा को बैंक आफ इंडिया के निदेशक बोर्ड में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है। वे नियुक्ति की तारीख से अधिवर्षिता की आयु अर्थात् 31-7-2009 तक या उनके बैंक आफ इंडिया के कर्मकार कर्मचारी बने रहने तक या अगले आदेश होने तक , जो भी पहले हो, इस पद पर बने रहेंगे।

[फा. सं. 15/5/2006- आईआर ]

S.O. 754. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of the Sub -section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980, read with Sub-clauses ( 1 ) and (2)(a) of Clause (9) of the Nationalized Banks (Management and, Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, herebynominates Shri S.K. Kohli , General Secretary, Canara Bank Officers ' Asociation, as Officer Employce Director on the Board of Directors of Canara Bank for a period ofthree years from the date of notification or until his successor has been nominated or until he ceases to be an officer of the Canara Bank , or until further orders whichever is the earliest, provided that he shall not hold office continuously for a period exceding six years .

[F. No. 9/19/2001 -BO-I] रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

G.B. SINGH , Dy . Secy.

New Delhi , the 5th March, 2007

अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 755.- भारत में अल्पसंख्यकों के भौगोलिक फैलाव से पैदा हुए मुद्दों का समाधान करने के लिए निम्नानुसार एक अंतर- मंत्रालयी कार्य दल का गठन करने का निर्णय किया गया है :-

(i ) डा. बालचन्द्र मुंगेकर , सदस्य, योजना आयोग-अध्यक्ष

(ii ) सचिव , अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय- सदस्य

(iii) सचिव , शहरी विकास मंत्रालय सदस्य

S.O. 753.--In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of the Sub- section (3) ofSection 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with Sub- clause (2) ( a) of Clause 9 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Rameshwar Prasad, Special Assistant, Bank ofIndia, B.C.P. Marg , Patna Branch as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of India. He will hold office from the date of his appointment till he attains the age of superannuation i.e. 31-07-2009 or till he ceases tobe a workmen employee of Bank of India or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

( iv) सचिव, आवास एवं शहरी गरीबी उपशमन मंत्रालय सदस्य [F. No. 1 :5/5/2006- IR]

(v ) सचिव , स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय - सदस्य RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च , 2007

(vi ) सचिव , प्राथमिक शिक्षा विभाग , मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय-सदस्य

(vii ) सचिव , उच्चतर एवं तकनीकी शिक्षा विभाग , मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय- सदस्य

(viii) सचिव, श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय सदस्य

(ix ) सचिव, गृह मंत्रालय- सदस्य

का.आ. 754.- राष्ट्रीकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खण्ड 9 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) एवं ( 2 ) (क) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खंड (च ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके , एतद्वारा श्री श्री एस. के. कोहली, 1512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007 /PHALGUNA 26. 1928

(x) सचिव , विधायी कार्य मंत्रालय- सदस्य

(xi ) सचिव , महिला एवं बाल विकास मंत्रालय- सदस्य (xii ) प्रो. एस. के. थोरट , अध्यक्ष विश्वविद्यालय अनुदान आयोग-आमंत्रित

(xiii ) प्रो. टी. के. ऊमेन , नई दिल्ली-आमंत्रित

(xiv) प्रो इम्तियाज अहमद , नई दिल्ली-आमंत्रित

(xv ) श्री लामा लाबजांग , नई दिल्ली-आमंत्रित

(xvi ) संयुक्त सचिव , अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय - संयोजक 2. इस अंतर- मंत्रालयी कार्य दल के विचारार्थ विषय इस प्रकार होंगे:-

(i ) उन कस्बों/नगरों की पहचान करना , जहाँ अल्पसंख्यक जनसंख्या भारी संख्या में संकेन्द्रित है , और जिन पर विशेष ध्यान देने की आवश्यकता है ।

( ii ) ऐसे कस्बों/नगरों में , भारी अल्पसंख्यक जनसंख्या संकेन्द्रित वाले शहरी इलाकों के लिए आवास , स्कूलों और शैक्षिक सुविधाओं , स्वास्थ्य सुविधाओं तथा रोजगार अवसरों जैसी मूल नागरिक सुविधाओं के प्रावधान हेतु मल्टी-सैक्टरल प्लान के वास्ते दृष्टिकोण तैयार करना ।

(iii ) ऐसे मल्टी-सैक्टरल प्लानों के कार्यान्वयन के लिए उन वर्तमान योजनाओं/कार्यक्रमों की पहचान करना जहाँ से ऐसे इलाकों में निधियां निर्दिष्ट की जा सकें ।

( iv ) मल्टी-सैक्टरल प्लानों में शामिल परियोजनाओं के संसाधन अंतराल निधिकरण तथा उन विशिष्ट परियोजनाओं के निधिकरण के लिए जो किसी भी वर्तमान योजना/कार्यक्रम के अंतर्गत शामिल नहीं हैं के वास्ते विशेष योजनाओं का सुझाव देना ।

3. इस अंतर- मंत्रालयी कार्य दल की बैठक से संबंधित यात्रा भत्ता/दैनिक भत्ते पर हुआ व्यय , अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय द्वारा वहन किया जाएगा । गैर सरकारी सदस्य, भारत सरकार के श्रेणी -1 के अधिकारी को देय यात्रा भत्ते/दैनिक भत्ते , प्राप्त करने के पात्र होंगे और इसका भुगतान अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय द्वारा किया जाएगा । 4. इस अंतर- मंत्रालयी कार्य दल के अध्यक्ष , यदि आवश्यक हो तो किसी विशिष्ट क्षेत्र/समस्या पर , अतिरिक्त सदस्य को समायोजित कर सकते हैं ।

करेगा । 5. यह कार्य दल अपनी रिपोर्ट तीन मास की अवधि में प्रस्तुत 6. यह योजना आयोग के परामर्श से और सं. स. एवं वित्तीय सलाहकार की उनके डायरी सं. 6413 दिनांक 01 मार्च , 2007 के तहत सहमति से तथा अल्पसंख्यक कार्य मंत्रालय में सक्षम प्राधिकारी के अनुमोदन से जारी किया जाता है ।

[सं. 5-12/2006- पीपी-1 ]

अमेइसिंग लुईखम , संयुक्त सचिव

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )| MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 2nd March , 2007

S.O. 755. In order to address the issues arising out of the geographical distribution of minorities in India , ithas been decided to set up an Interministerial Task Force as follows:-

(i ) Dr. Balachandra Mungekar Member, Planning Commission-Chairperson

( ii) Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs-Member ( iii) Secretary , Ministry of Urban Development ---- Member

(iv) Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation-Member

(v) Secretary-Ministry of Health & Family Welfare-- Member

(vi ) Secretary , Department of Elementary Education , Ministry of Human Resource Development- Member

(vii) Secretary , Department of Higher & Technical Education , Ministry of Human Resource Development -Member

(viii) Secretary , Ministry of Labour & Employment--- Member

(ix) Secretary , Ministry of of Home Affairs-Member (x) Secretary, Ministry of Legal Affairs-Member (xi) Secretary , Ministry of Women & Child Development Member

(xii) Prof. S.K. Thorat Chairman , UGC , New Delhi- Invitee

(xiii) Prof. T.K. Oomen, New Delhi --Invitee

(xiv) Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed, New Delhi -Invitee (xv) Shri Lama Lobzong , New Delhi-Invitee (xvi) Joint Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs- Convener .

2. The terms of reference of the Inter -Ministerial Task Force shall be as follows :-

(i) To identify towns/cities having a substantial concentration of minority population requiring special attention;

(ii) To formulate the approach for multi -sectoral plan for provison of basic civic amenties such as housing , schools and educational facilities, health facilities and employment opportunities for urban localities having a substantial concentration of minority population, within such towns/cities .

(iii) To identify existing schemes/programmes from which funds could be channelized to such localities for implementation of multi - sectoral plans;

1513

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare)

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2007 (iv) To suggest special schemes for funding the resource gap ofprojects included in the multi -sectoral plan and also for funding specific projects which are not covered under any of the existing scheme/ programmes;

3. The expenditure on TA/DA in connection with themeeting ofthe Inter- ministerial Task Force will be borne by the Minsitry of Minority Affairs . Non-Official Members willbe entitled to TA/DA as admissible to Grade- I Officer of the Government of India and this will be paid by the Ministry of MinorityAffairs .

S.O. 756. Whereas in pursuance of the provision ofSub-section (1) (b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Prof. (Dr.) M.A. Shah, Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar member ofthe faculty of Medicine , University of Kashmir has been elected unanimousty by the Universily Council of the University ofKashmir (equivalent to Senate/Court ) to be a member of the Medical Council of India for five years with effect from date of issue of this notification .

4.The Chairman of the Inter -ministerial Task Force, if necessary, may-co - opt additional member on any specific area/problem.

5. The Task Force shall submit its report within a period ofthree months .

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

6. This issues with the approval of Competent Authority in the Ministry of Minority Affairs in consultation with Planning Commission and concurrence ofJS& FA vide dairy No. 6413, dated 1st March, 2007.

[No. 5-12/2006-PP - 1 ]

Inthe said Notification , under the heading, "Elected under clause (b) of Sub- section ( 1) of Section 3 " , against serial number 51 , the following entries shall be substituted, namely:-

AMEISING LUIKHAM, Jt. Secy .

University of Kashmir" स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

"51. Prof. (Dr. ) M.A. Shah , Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar

नई दिल्ली , 2 मार्च, 2007

[No. V- 11013/6/2006- ME(P -I ) ]

T.J.S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च, 2007 का. आ. 756.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में प्रो. ( डा. ) एम. ए. शाह, प्रिंसिपल , गवर्नमेंट मेडिकल कालेज , श्रीनगर , कायचिकित्सा संकाय के सदस्य, कश्मीर विश्वविद्यालय को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए कश्मीर विश्वविद्यालय की विश्वविद्यालय परिषद् ( सीनेट/कोर्ट के समकक्ष ) द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में सर्वसम्मति से निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

का.आ. 757.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. वेद प्रकाश मिश्रा , संकाय के सदस्य, कार्यचिकित्सा, राष्ट्र संत तुकादोजी महाराज नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय को राष्ट्र संत तुकादोजी महाराज नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय , नागपुर के सीनेट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

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

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 51 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

"51. प्रो. ( डा. ). एम. ए, शाह ,

कश्मीर विश्वविद्यालय " प्रिंसिपल,

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने गिरीश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ के मामले में रिट याचिका (सिविल ) 23557/05 में 1-3-2007 को दिए गए अपने आदेश में निर्देश दिया है कि सक्षम न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार द्वारा पारित आदेशों के अध्यधीन , वे विश्वविद्यालय जिनसे राज्य में मेडिकल कालेज सम्बद्ध हैं और इन कालेजों का संबंधन राज्य के स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से अब तक सम्बद्ध नहीं हुआ है, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् में प्रतिनिधित्व करते रहेंगे लेकिन यह उस अधिसूचना के द्वारा समाप्त हो सकेगा जिसके तहत उक्त मेडिकल कालेजों को संबंधित राज्य में संबंधित स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से सम्बद्ध किया गया हो,

गवर्नमेंट मेडिकल कालेज , श्रीनगर

[सं. वी. - 11013/6/2006- एम.ई. ( नीति-1 ) ]

जबकि माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय को भारत संघ की ओर से यह भी सूचित किया गया था कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव 1514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) )

colleges are affiliated to the concerned Health University in the respective States ,

विशेष अनुमति याचिका डाली गई है जिसमें उठाए गए मुद्दों में से एक मुद्दा यह था कि क्या राज्य में स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय बन जाने के बाद भी पारंपरिक विश्वविद्यालयों को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् में प्रतिनिधित्व करना चाहिए ,

Whereas the Hon ' ble High Court of Delhi was also informedthat on behalf of the Union of India, Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein one of the issues raised was whether the traditional universities should continue to be represented in the MCI even after formation of Health University in the State,

अतः, अब , सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या 23557/2005 -डा. गिरीश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ और अन्य में दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के 1 मार्च, 2007 के आदेशों तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 16 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

Now, therefore, in pursuance of orders dated 1st March, 2007 of Delhi High Court in the CWP No. 23557/ 2005- Dr. Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India & Others and the provision of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January , 1960 , namely :-

" 16. डॉ. वेद प्रकाश मिश्रा ,

नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय "

प्लाट नं. 3 , नीरा अपार्टमेंट ,

In the said Notification , under the heading, " Elected under clause (b) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 " , against serial number 16, the following entries shall be substituted , namely:

एनआईटी गार्डन के सामने , रामाकृष्णा नगर , नागपुर ,

NagpurUniversity" पिन-440022

"16. Dr. Ved Prakash Mishra Plot No. 3 , Neera Appartment Opposite NIT Garden , Ramakrsihna Nagar ,

Nagpur-440 022

यह अधिसूचना और भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् में सदस्य के रूप में डा. वेद प्रकाश मिश्रा का बना रहना विशेष अनुमति याचिका संख्या 19242/06 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आगामी आदेशों और इस विषय पर सक्षम क्षेत्राधिकार वाले अन्य न्यायालयों के आदेशों अथवा ऐसे समय तक तब तक एम यू एच एस अधिनियम, 1998 के अनुसरण में महाराष्ट्र यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइसिज , नासिक से राष्ट्र संत तुकादोजी महाराज नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय , नागपुर के अंतर्गत मेडिकल कालेजों की संबद्धता का हस्तातरण नहीं हो जाता , जो भी पहले हो , के अध्यधीन होगा ।

[सं. वी-11013/2/2004- एम.ई. (नीति-1 ) ]

This notification and continuation of Dr. V.P. Mishra as member of the MCI is subject to the further orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 19242/06 and the orders of other courts of competent jurisdiction on the issue or till such time notification is made to transfer the affiliation ofmedical colleges under Rashtra Sant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University , Nagpur to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nasik in accordance with the MUHS Act, 1998 , whichever is earlier .

टी. जे. एस . चावला , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2007

[No. V- 11013/2/2004- ME (Policy - I) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च, 2007

S.O. 757. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub- section ( 1 ) ( b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956( 102 of 1956) Dr. Ved Prakash Mishra , member of the Faculty of Medicine , Rashtra Sant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University has been elected by the Senate of the Rashtra Sant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur , tobe a member of the Medical Council of India .

का.आ. 758.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. डी. एस. जने, संकाय सदस्य कायचिकित्सा , अमरावती विश्वविद्यालय को अमरावती विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र के सीनेट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

Whereas the Hon' ble Delhi High Court in its order dated01-03-2007 in the case of Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India in WP ( C) 23557/05 directed that , subject to orders which may be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction , the Universities in which the Medical Colleges in the State are affiliated and the affiliation of those colleges has not so far been attachedto the Health/Medical University of the State, would continue to be represented in the Medical Council of India but the same would be elapsed by the operation of the notification vide which the said medical

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने गिरीश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ के मामले मे रिट याचिका ( सिविल ) 23557/05 में 1-3-2007 को दिए गए अपने आदेश में निर्देश दिया है कि सक्षम न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार द्वारा पारित आदेशों के अध्यधीन , वे विश्वविद्यालय जिनसे राज्य में मेडिकल कालेज सम्बद्ध हैं और इन कालेजों का संबंधन राज्य के स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से अब तक सम्बद्ध नहीं हुआ है, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् मे प्रतिनिधित्व करते 1515

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

रहेंगे लेकिन यह उस अधिसूचना के द्वारा समाप्त हो सकेगा जिसके तहत उक्त मेडिकल कालेजों को संबंधित राज्य में संबंधित स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से सम्बद्ध किया गया हो,

farbeen attached to the Health/Medical University of the State, would continue to be represented in the Medical Council of India but the same would be elapsed by the operation of the notification vide which the said medical colleges are affiliated to the concerned Health University inthe respective States,

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय को भारत संघ की ओर से यह भी सूचित किया गया था कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में विशेष अनुमति याचिका डाली गई है जिसमें उठाए गए मुद्दों में से एक मुद्दा यह था कि क्या राज्य में स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय बन जाने के बाद भी पारंपरिक विश्वविद्यालयों को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में प्रतिनिधित्व करना चाहिए ,

Whereas the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi was also informed that on behalf of the Union of India, Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein one of the issues raised was whether the traditional universities should continue to be represented in theMCI even after formation of Health University in the State,

अतः , अब , सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या 23557/2005- डा. गिरिश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ और अन्य में दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के 1 मार्च , 2007 के आदेशों तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अर्थात्: -

Now , therefore , in pursuance of orders dated 1stMarch, 2007 of Delhi High Court in the CWP No. 23557/ 2005-Dr. Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India & Others and the provision of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January , 1960, namely:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 67 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय "

" 67. डॉ. डी. एस. जने ,

Inthe saidNotification, under the heading , " Elected under clause (b) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 3 ", against serial number 67, the following entries shall be substituted, namely:

डीन,

" 67. Dr. D. S. Jane

Amarvati University "

Dean

पंजाबराव देशमुख , मेमोरियल मेडिकल कालेज ,

PanjabraoDesmmukh

अमरावती, महाराष्ट्र

MemorialMedical College ,

Amaravati , Maharashtra .

This notification and continuation of Dr. D.S. Jane as member of the MCI is subject to the further orders of Hon' ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 19242/06 and the orders of other courts of competent jurisdiction on the issue or till such time notification is made to transfer the affiliation of medical colleges under Amaravati University , Amaravati to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nasik in accordance with the MUHS Act, 1998 , whichever is earlier.

यह अधिसूचना और भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में सदस्य के रूप में डा. डी. एस. जने का बना रहना विशेष अनुमति याचिका संख्या 19242/06 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आगामी आदेशों और इस विषय पर सक्षम क्षेत्राधिकार वाले अन्य न्यायालयों के आदेशों अथवा ऐसे समय तक जब तक एम यू एच एस अधिनियम , 1998 के अनुसरण में महाराष्ट्र यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइसिज, नासिक से अमरावती विश्वविद्यालय , अमरावती के अंतर्गत मेडिकल कालेजों की संबद्धता का हस्तातरण नहीं हो जाता , जो भी पहले हो, के अध्यधीन होगा । ।

[No. V- 11013/2/2004-ME (Policy -I) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy .

[सं. वी-11013/2/2004- एम.ई. ( नीति-1 ) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च , 2007

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2007

S.O. 758. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub - section ( 1 ) (b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. D. S. Jane , member ofthe faculty ofMedicine , Amaravati University has been elected by the Senate of the Amaravati University, Maharashtra, to be a member of the Medical Council of India .

का.आ. 759.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. भाईदास पाटिल , संकाय सदस्य कायचिकित्सा , नार्थ महाराष्ट्र विश्वविद्यालय को नार्थ महाराष्ट्र विश्वविद्यालय , जलगांव , महाराष्ट्र के सीनेट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने गिरीश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ के मामले मे. रिट याचिका ( सिविल ) 23557/05 में 1-3-2007 को दिए गए अपने आदेश में निर्देश दिया है कि सक्षम न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार द्वारा पारित आदेशों के अध्यधीन , वे Whereas the Hon' ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 01-03-2007 in the case of Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India in WP ( C) 23557/05 directed that, subject to orders which may be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction, the Universities in which the Medical Colleges in the State are affiliated and the affiliation of those colleges has not so [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )) 1516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26 , 1928

विश्वविद्यालय जिनसे राज्य में मेडिकल कालेज सम्बद्ध हैं और इन कालेजों का संबंधन राज्य के स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से अब तक सम्बद्ध नहीं हुआं है , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में प्रतिनिधित्व करते रहेंगे लेकिन यह उस अधिसूचना के द्वारा समाप्त हो सकेगा जिसके तहत उक्त मेडिकल कालेजों को संबंधित राज्य में संबंधित स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से सम्बद्ध किया गया हो,

Whereas the Hon ' ble Delhi High Court in its order dated01-03-2007 in the case of Girish Tyagi Versus Union ofIndia in WP( C) 23557/05 directed that , subject to orders whichmay be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction, the Universities in which the Medical Colleges in the State are affiliated and the affiliation of those colleges has not so far been attached to the Health/Medical University of the State, would continue to be represented in the Medical Council of India but the same would be elapsed by the operation of the notification vide which the said medical colleges are affiliated to the concerned Health University inthe respective States ,

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय को भारत संघ की ओर से यह भी सूचित किया गया था कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय में विशेष अनुमति बाचिका डाली गई है जिसमें उठाए गए मुद्दों में से एक मुद्दा यह था कि क्या राज्य में स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय बन जाने के बाद भी पारंपरिक विश्वविद्यालयों को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में प्रतिनिधित्व करना चाहिए ,

Whereas the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi was also informedthat on behalf of the Union of India, Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein one of the issues raised was whether the traditional universities should continue to be represented in the MCI even after formation of Health University in the State,

अतः , अब, सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या 23557/2005- डा. गिरिश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ और अन्य में दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के 1 मार्च , 2007 के आदेशों तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपचारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 मे निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 74 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

Now, therefore , in pursuancesuance of orders dated 1stMarch 2007 of Delhi High Court in the CWP No. 23557/ 2005- Dr . Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India & Others and the provision of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960, namely : -

" 74. डॉ. भाईदास पाटिल ,

नार्थ महाराष्ट्र विश्वविद्यालय "

Inthe said Notification , under the heading , " Elected under clause (b) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 " , after serial number 74, the following entries shall be substituted , namely:

अध्यक्ष, बी ओ एस सर्जरी अन्नासाहेब चूडामन पाटिल मेमोरियल मेडिकल कालेज, धुले-425405

" 74. Dr. Bhaidas Patil

North Maharashtra University"

Chairman , BOS Surgery

Memorial Medical College ,

Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Dhule , 425405 .

यह अधिसूचना और भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में सदस्य के रूप में डा. भाईदास पाटिल का बना रहना विशेष अनुमति याचिका संख्या 19242/06 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आगामी आदेशों और इस विषय पर सक्षम क्षेत्राधिकार वाले अन्य न्यायालयों के आदेशों अथवा ऐसे समय तक जब तक एम यू एच एस अधिनियम , 1998 के अनुसरण में महाराष्ट्र यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइसिज, नासिक से नार्थ महाराष्ट्र विश्वविद्यालय , जलगांव के अंतर्गत मेडिकल कालेजों की संबद्धता का हस्तांतरण नहीं हो जाता , जो भी पहले हो, के अध्यधीन होगा ।

[ सं. वी-11013/2/2004- एम.ई. ( नीति-1 ) ]

टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव

This notification and continuation of Dr. Bhaidas Patil as member of the MCI is subject to the further orders ofHon' ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 19242/06 and the orders of other courts of competent jurisdiction on the issue or till such time notification is made to transfer the affiliation of medical colleges under North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nasik in accordance with the MUHS Act, 1998 , whichever is earlier .

New Delhi , the 5th March ,2007

[No. V - 11013/2/2004- ME (Policy - I ) ]

T.J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2007

S.O. 759. Whereas in pursuarice of the provision ofsub - section ( 1) (b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. Bhaidas Patil , member of the faculty of Medicine , North Maharashtra University has been elected by the Senate of the North Maharashtra University , Jalgaon , Maharashtra, to be a member of the MedicalCouncil of India .

का.आ. 760.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डॉ. बिजाय मुखर्जी, संकाय सदस्य कायचिकित्सा, 1517 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th March, 2007

बर्दमान विश्वविद्यालय को बर्दमान विश्वविद्यालय के कोर्ट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है।

S.O. 760. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub -section ( 1 ) (b) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956( 102 of 1956) Dr. Bijoy Mukherjee , member of the faculty ofMedicine , Burdwan University has been elected by the Court ofthe Burdwan University , to be a member of theMedical Council of India .

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने गिरीश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ के मामले मे रिट याचिका ( सिविल ) 23557/05 में 1-3-2007 को दिए गए अपने आदेश में निर्देश दिया है कि सक्षम न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार द्वारा पारित आदेशों के अध्यधीन , वे विश्वविद्यालय जिनसे राज्य में मेडिकल कालेज सम्बद्ध हैं. और इन कालेजों का संबंधन राज्य के स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से अब तक सम्बद्ध नहीं हुआ है , भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में प्रतिनिधित्व करते रहेंगे लेकिन यह उस अधिसूचना के द्वारा समाप्त हो सकेगा जिसके तहत उक्त मेडिकल कालेजों को संबंधित राज्य में संबंधित स्वास्थ्यविश्वविद्यालय से सम्बद्ध किया गया हो ,

Whereas the Hon ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 1-3-2007 in the case ofGirish Tyagi Versus Union of India in WP( C) 23557/05 directed that , subject to orders which may be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction , the Universities in which the Medical Colleges in the State are affiliated and the affiliation of those colleges has not so far been attached to the Health/Medical University of the State, would continue to be represented in the Medical Council of India but the same would be elapsed by the operation of the notification vide which the said medical colleges are affiliated to the concerned Health University in the respective States,

जबकिमाननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय को भारत संघ की ओर से यह भी सूचित किया गया था कि माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय मेंविशेष अनुमति याचिका डाली गई है जिसमें उठाए गए मुद्दों में से एक मुद्दा यह था कि क्या राज्य में स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय बन जाने के बाद भी पारंपरिक विश्वविद्यालयों को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में प्रतिनिधित्व करना चाहिए,

Whereas the Hon ' ble High Court of Delhi was also informedthat on behalf of the Union of India , Special Leave Petition has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein one of the issues raised was whether the traditional universities should continue to be represented in the MCI even after formation of Health University in the State,

अतः , अब , सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या 23557/2005-डा. गिरिश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ और अन्य में दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय . के । मार्च , 2007 के आदेशों तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या . का. आ. 138 मे निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अर्थात्: -

Now, therefore , in pursuance of orders dated 1stMarch, 2007 ofDelhi High Court in the CWP No. 23557 / 2005- Dr. Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India & Others and the provision of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9thJanuary, 1960, namely:

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 53 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

बर्दमान विश्वविद्यालय "

" 53. डॉ. बिजाय मुखर्जी,

प्रिंसिपल

Inthe said Notification, under the heading , " Elected under clause (b) of sub section ( 1 ) of Section 3 " , against serial number 53, the following entries shall be substituted, namely:

बर्दमान विश्वविद्यालय

"53. Dr. Bijoy Mukherjee

University of Burdwan "

Principal

बर्दमान ( पश्चिम बंगाल )

BurdwanUniversity

Burdwan (West Bengal)

यह अधिसूचना और आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में सदस्य के रूप में डा. बिजाय मुखर्जी का बना रहा विशेष अनुमति याचिका संख्या 19242/06 में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आगामी आदेशों और इस विषय पर सक्षम क्षेत्राधिकार वाले अन्य न्यायालयों के आदेशों अथवा ऐसे समय तक जब तक डब्ल्यू बी यू एच एस अधिनियम , 2002के अनुसरण में वेस्ट बंगाल यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइसिज, कोलकाता से बर्दमान विश्वविद्यालय , बर्दमान के अंतर्गत मेडिकल कालेजों की संबद्धता का हस्तातरण नहीं हो जाता , जो भी पहले हो , के अध्यधीन होगा ।

1 This notification and continuation of Dr. Bijoy Mukherjee as member of the MCI is subject to the further orders ofHon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 19242/ 06 and the orders of other courts of competent jurisdiction on the issue or till such time notification is made to transfer theaffiliation of medical colleges under Burdwan University, Burdwanto the West Bengal University ofHealth Sciences, Kolkata in accordance with the WBUHS Act , 2002, whichever is earlier .

[सं. वी.11013/2/2004- एम.ई. ( नीति-1 ) ]

टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव

[No. V- 11013/2/2004- ME (Policy- I) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy .

71961/07-2 1518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग )

( पूर्ति प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली , 5 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 761.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में, वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय , वाणिज्य विभाग ( पूर्ति प्रभाग ) के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले चारियों की संख्या 80% से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप इस कार्यालय को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :-

उप निदेशक ( गुणता आश्वासन ) ,

" प्रभाकुंज " , 2- ए, चन्द्रगुप्त सोसाइटी , होटल बाबा गार्डन के सामने ,

पॉड रोड, कोथरूड, पुणे -411 038

[फा. सं. ई-11016/6/2004-हिन्दी] भारती सिवास्वामी सिहाग , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce )

( SUPPLY DIVISION)

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2007

SO . 761. In pursuance of Sub - rule (4 ) of Rule ( 10 ) of Official Language ( Use for Official purposes of the Union ) Rules , 1973, the Central Government hereby notify the following office of the Ministry of Commerce & Industry , Depart- ment ofCommerce (Supply Division ) , where more than 80 % of Staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

Dputy Director ( Quality Assurance ) ,

" Frabhakunj ", 2-A Chandergupta Society , Opp . Hotel Baba's Garden ,

Palhd Road, Kothrud , Pune - 411 038

[ F. No. E- 11016/6/2004-Hindi } BHARATHI S. SIHAG , Jt . Secy.

संचार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

(डाक विभाग)

( डाक जीवन बीमा निदेशालय )

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2007

का आ . 762.- राष्ट्रपति सहर्ष निदेशालय की दिनांक 15 मार्च , 1995 की अधिसूचना संख्या 5-1 /94- एलआई के पैरा 7 को ( ग्रामीण डाक जीवन बीमा की शुरूआत हेतु ) निम्नलिखित रूप से संशोधित करते हैं :-

2. इस स्कीम के अंतर्गत बीमा की न्यूनतम सीमा 10,000 रु. ( दस हजार रुपये ) होगी । चिकित्सा योजना के अंतर्गत अधिकतम सीमा, सभी योजनाओं के अंतर्गत कुल बीमित राशि को मिलाकर , 3,00,000 ( तीन लाख रुपये ) से अधिक नहीं होगी । गैर चिकित्सा योजना के संबंध में अधिकतम सीमा , सभी योजनाओं के अंतर्गत कुल बीमित राशि को मिलाकर 25,000 रु. ( पचीस हजार रुपये ) से अधिक नहीं होगी । 45 वर्ष या इससे अधिक आयु वाले व्यक्ति बीमित राशि बढ़ाने के पात्र नहीं होंगे ।

3. यह संशोधन 01-03-2007 से लागू होगा !

[सं. 25-03/2003- एल आई ] वी. पती, अपर महाप्रबंधक MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Posts)

(Directorate of PLI)

New Delhi , the 23rd February , 2007

S.O. 762. The President is pleased to amend para 7 of Directorate Notification No. 5-1 /94 - LI dated 15 the March, 1995 ( for introduction of Rural Postal Life Insurance ) as under :-

1519 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

2. The minimum limit for insurance under this Scheme shall be Rupees 10,000 (Rupees ten thousands) . The maximum limit under the medical scheme, taking total sum assured under all plans , shall not exceed Rupees 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) . The maximum limit in respect of Non - medical scheme taking total sum assured under all plans shall not exceed Rupees 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousands ) . Those with 45 years of age and above will not be eligible to increase their sum assured.

3. This will have effect from 1-3-2007 .

[No. 25-03/2003 - LI

V. PATI, Addl . General Manager उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2007

का. आ. 763.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित

भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि

क्रम संख्या

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

कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

31जनवरी , 2007 1. आई एस 8215 ( भाग 1 ) : 2007/ आई एस ओ 3715-1: 2002 पोत आई एस 8215 : 1976 और समुद्री प्रौद्योगिकी- पोतों के लिए प्रणोदन संयंत्र भाग-1 प्रणोदकों की ज्यामिति की पारिभाषिक शब्दावली (पहला पुरीक्षण )

31जनवरी , 2007 2. आई एस 8215 ( भाग 2 ) : 2007/आई एस ओ 3715-2: 2001 पोत आई एस 8215 : 1976 और समुद्री प्रौद्योगिकी- पोतों के लिए प्रणोदन संयंत्र भाग -2 नियंत्रणीय- पिच प्रणोदक संयंत्रों की पारिभाषिक शब्दावली ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

31दिसम्बर , 2006 3. आई एस 15708 : 2006 सड़क वाहन- ब्रेक अस्तर - डिस्क ब्रेक पैड तथा ड्रम ब्रेक शू ऐसेम्बली के लिए अपरूपण परीक्षण विधि

31दिसम्बर , 2006 4. आई एस 15710: 2006 सड़क वाहन-संपीड़ित प्राकृतिक गैस ( सीएनजी ) ईंधन प्रणाली के घटक सामान्य अपेक्षाएं एवं परिभाषाएं

31 दिसम्बर , 2006 5. आई एस 15714:2006 सड़क वाहन- संपीड़ित प्राकृतिक गैस ( सीएनजी ) ईंधन प्रणाली के घटक- गैस/वायु मिश्रक

31 दिसम्बर , 2006 आई एस 15721 : 2006 सड़क वाहन - संपीड़ित प्राकृतिक गैस ( सीएनजी ) सीट, सोफासाजी, छत और साइड लाइनिंग के लिए अग्नि मंदक

31दिसम्बर, 2006 7. आई एस 15723 :2006 सड़क वाहन - संपीड़ित प्राकृतिक गैस ( सीएनजी) ईंधन प्रणाली के घटक करंट सीमित करने वाली युक्तियां

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवने 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुरे , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. टी ई डी/जी-16 ]

राकेश कुमार, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2007

S.O. 763. 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 :

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) 1520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

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

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

IS 8215 : 1976 31Jan. , 2007 1. IS8215 (Part 1) : 2007/ISO 3715-1 : 2002 Ships and Marinetechnology Propulsion plants for ships-Part 1 vocabulary for geometry of propellers (first revision)

IS8215: 1976 31 Jan. , 2007 2. IS 8215 (Part 2) : 2007/ISO 3715-2 : 2001 Ships and marine technology-Propulsion plants for ships- Part 2 vocabulary for controllable - pitch propeller plants (first revision)

31 Dec. ,2006 3. IS 15708 :2006 Road vehicles-Brake linings-Shear lestprocedure for disc brake and drum brake shoe assemblies .

31 Dec. , 2006 4. IS 15710: 2006 Road vehicles Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fueal system components General requirements and definitions

31 Dec. , 2006 5. IS 15714: 2006 Road vehicles Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fueal system components-Gas/ air mixer.

31 Dec. , 2006 6. IS 15721: 2006 Road vehicles Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Fire retardant material for seat, upholstery , roof and side lining .

31 Dec. , 2006 7. IS 15723: 2006 Road vehicles Compressed Natural Gas ( CNG) Fuel system components -Current limiting devices .

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

[No..TED/G- 16]

RAKESH KUMAR , Scientist F and Head (Transport Engg. )

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 764.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

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

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

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

मार्च 2007 1. आई एस/ आई एस ओ 105- ए 06 1995 वस्त्रादि रंग के पक्केपन के परीक्षण भाग ए 06 उपकरण द्वारा रंग की 1/1 स्टैंडर्ड डैप्थ को ज्ञात करना

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

[सं. टी एक्स डी/जी -25 ]

एम. एस वर्मा , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( टीएक्सडी ) 1521

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th March, 2007

S. O. 764. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

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

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

March, 2007 1 . IS/ISO 105-A06 : 1995 Textiles--Tests for colour fastness Part A06 Instrumental determination of 1/1 standard depth of colour.

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

[No. TXD/G - 25 ]

M.S. VERMA, Director and Head (Textiles) )

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 765. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम (5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेन्सों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम लाइसेंस

चालूतिथि

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक संसं

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1 ) ( 2)

जनवरी 2007

694 : 1990

27-12-2006

मैसर्स अंकुर इण्डस्ट्रीज ,

01 8774808

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

जी 1-62ए, रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , बगरू विस्तार , फेज- II , जयपुर

1417 : 1999

मैसर्स श्री सर्वेश्वर आभूषण भण्डार ,.

3-1-2007

8776004

हॉलमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वैलरी

577/13 , नया बाजार ,

अजमेर-305 001

1417 : 1999

8776307

3-1-2007

हॉलमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वैलरी

मैसर्स एन. बी. ज्वैलर्स, सैन्ट्रल गर्ल्स स्कूल के सामने चूड़ी बाजार , अजमेर-305 001

12-1-2007

8779818

14151 ( भाग 2 ) : 1999 क्विक कपल्ड पाईप्स

मैसर्स पारीक पोलीमर्स , एफ-33 , रीकी औद्योगिक क्षेत्र नोखा जिला बीकानेर-334 809

694 : 1990

11-1-2007

8778715

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

मैसर्स एशियन केबल्स, जे-1207-1227 , फेज- II , सीतापुर औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, जयपुर 1522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

06 8779515

11-1-2007 07 8779717

11-1-2007 08 8779616

11-1-2007 09 8780803

16-1-2007 10 8780904

16-1-2007 11 8778614

11-1-2007

मैसर्स पुनीत इण्डस्ट्रियल कार्पोरेशन , जे-1072, फेज- II , सीतापुरा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302 022 12 8779212

11-1-2007

मैसर्स मोहित पोलीटैक प्रा. लि. , एफ-139 , रोड नं. 6 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , बिन्दायका, जयपुर 13 8776206

3-1-2007 1

मैसर्स एमके कैम , एच 2-147 , मिनी ग्रोथ सैन्टर , फेज-1, सांगरिया, जोधपुर-342 008

14 8778917

11-1-2007

मैसर्स बी. एन. सन्स ए 85 बी , रोड नं. 9 विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-13 15 8779010

11-1-2007 16 8780702

16-1-2007 17 8779313

11-1-2007

मैसर्स मोहित पोलीटैक प्रा. लि. , एफ-139 , रोड नं. 6 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, बिन्दायका , जयपुर

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 398 ( भाग 2 ) : 1996

एसी एस आर

मैसर्स राजस्थान ट्रांसफोमर्स एण्ड स्विचगियर्स (मै . आरटीएस पॉवर कारपोरेशन लि. की इकाई ) सी-174 , रोड नं. 9 (जे ) , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर -13

1554 ( भाग ) : 1988 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड ( एचडी) केबल्स

मैसर्स श्री श्याम कृपा इलैक्टिक प्रा.लि. , ए-69 , जय अम्बे नगर , गोपालपुरा मोड़ , टौंक रोड, जयपुर

694 : 1990 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

मैसर्स श्री श्याम कृपा इलैक्ट्रिक प्रा. लि. , ए-69 , जय अम्बे नगर गोपालपुरा मोड़ , टौंक रोड, जयपुर

1554 ( भाग 1 ) : 1988 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड ( एच डी ) केबल्स

मैसर्स श्री बालाजी केबल इण्डस्ट्रीज , 17 , लक्ष्मी नारायण पुरी , झोटवाडा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-302 012 694 : 1990

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

मैसर्स श्री बालाजी केबल इण्डस्ट्रीज , 17 , लक्ष्मी नारायण पुरी , झोटवाडा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र, जयपुर-302 012 694 : 1990 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

12786 1989 पी ई पाईप्स फॉर इरीगेशन लैटरल्स

5410 : 1942 सीमेण्ट पेन्ट

14255 1995

एरियल बन्च्ड केबल्स

398 ( भाग 2) : 1996 ए सी एस आर

मैसर्स बी. एन. सन्स, ए 85 बी , रोड नं. 9 , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-13

398 ( भाग 2) : 1996 ए सी एस आर

मैसर्स अवन्तिका कैमीकल्स एण्ड , मैटल्स (प्रा. ) लि. , ई-48, रोड नं. 2 , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-13

13487 : 1992

इरीगेशन इक्विपमेंट्स- एमीटर्स 1523.

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II--खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3) (1) ( 2)

16-1-2007 8781094

17-1-2007 8781906

22-1-2007 8783001

(5)

(4)

5410 : 1942 सीमेण्ट पेन्ट

मैसर्स जगदीश कन्स्ट्रक्शन प्रा. लि. , 134, पीपल्वा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , बांसवाडा 14151 ( भाग 2 ) : 1999 ज्ञिवक कपल्ड पाईप्स

मैसर्स राजस्थान इरीगेशन कं. , एच-519 ए, रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , झोसेटवाडा विस्तार- II , सरणा डूंगर , फेज- II , जयपुर-302 012

12269 : 1987

53 ग्रेड ऑर्डिनरी पोर्टलैण्ड सीमेण्ट

मैसर्स महावीर ग्रामोद्योग संस्थान,

प्लॉट नं. एफ-11 ,

जिला-भीलवाडा-311 601

21 8783102

23-1-2007

25-1-2007 22 8784609

22-1-2007 8784306

27-12-2007 8774707

8778412

10-1-2007 25

8391 : 1987 रबराईज्ड काइल शीट्स फार कुशनिंग

मैसर्स रोज कॉयर फोम्स प्रा. लि. एफ-447 , औद्योगिक क्षेत्र फेज- रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , बीगोद भिवाडी जिला-अलवर -301 019

5382 : 1985 रबर सीलिंग रिंग्स फॉर गैस मेन्स, वॉटर मेन्स एण्ड सीवर्स

मैसर्स गंगा रबर इण्डस्ट्रीज जी 1/199 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र वाया : चौमूं, कालाडेरा जयपुर 14255 : 1995 एरियल बन्च्ड केबल्स

मैसर्स मंगल इलैक्ट्रिकल इण्डस्ट्रीज सी-61 ए, रोड नं. 1-सी विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-13 3034 : 2002 सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट्स

मैसर्स उजाला पम्पस ( प्रा. ) लि. एफ-83 , रीको औद्योगिक क्षेत्र भिवाडी जिला-अलवर

1417 : 1999

हॉलमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वैलरी

मैसर्स हार्दिक जैम्स एण्ड ज्वैलर्स

बजाजा बाजार , अलवर

11-1-2007 26 8778816

9-1-2007 8778311

8-12-2006 8767912

9537 भाग 3 ) : 1983 रिजिड प्लेन कन्दूट्स फॉर इन्सूलेटिंग

मैसर्स तिजारिया पोलीपाईप्स लिमिटेड एप-130( ई ) , रोड नं. 9 डी विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक क्षेत्र , जयपुर-13

1417 : 1999 हॉलमार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वैलरी

मैसर्स स्वर्णगंगा ज्वैलर्स खत्री स्ट्रीट , नारगासर के पास बाडमेर-344 001

8088 : 1976 ट्राईसाइकिल

मैसर्स श्री भगवान महावीर विकलांग सहायक समिति ए-13 , कैलगिरि हॉस्पिटल रोड मालवीय नगर , जयपुर

[सं सी एम डी-1/ 13 : 11 ] एस. के. चौधरी , उप- महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 7th March , 2007

S.O. 765. In pursuance of Sub - regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification Regulation, 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the following schedules .

1524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

SCHEDULE Sl . Licence No. Operative Date Name and Address of the Licensee No. (CM/L- )

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

JAN 2007

1. 8774808 27-12-2006

M/s . Ankur Industries , G1-62 , RIICO Industrial Area, BagruExt. Phase- II , Jaipur

2. 8776004 3-1-2007

Shri Sarweshwar Abhushan Bhandar , 557/13 , Naya Bazar AJMER-305001 3-1-2007

3. 8776307

N. B. Jewellers , Opp. CentralGirls School , ChuriBazar AJMER-305001 4. 8779818 12-1-2007

Pareek Polymers , F -33 , RIICO Industrial Area, Nokha Distt. Bikaner -334809 11-1-2007

5. 8778715

Asian Cables, J -1207-1227 , Phase - III , Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur 6. 8779515 11-1-2007

Rajasthan Transformer & Switchgears , (Aunit of RTS Power Corpn. Ltd.) , C-174, Road No - 9( J) Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013 7. 8779717 11-1-2007

Shree Shyam Kripa Electric Pvt. Ltd. , A-69 , Jai Ambe Nagar , GopalpuraMode , Tonk Road, Jaipur 8. 8779616 11-1-2007

Shree Shyam Kripa Electric Pvt. Ltd. , A-69, Jai Ambe Nagar , GopalpuraMode , Tonk Road , Jaipur 16-1-2007

9. 8780803

ShreeBalaji Cable Industries , 17, Laaxmi Narayan Puri , Jhotwara Industrial Area , Jaipur-302012 .

10. 8780904 16-1-2007

Shree Balaji Cable Industries , 17, Laaxmi Narayan Puri , Jhotwara Industrial Area , Jaipur-302012 .

11-1-2007

11. 8778614

Puneet Industrial Corporation, J - 1072 , Phase - III , Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur -302022 11-1-2007

12. 8779212

Mohit Polytech Pvt.Ltd . , F- 139 , Road No.6, RIICO Industrial Area , Bindayaka, Jaipur

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Article/Process Covered by the licences and the relevant IS: Designation

(5)

694:1990

PVC Insulated Cables

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

1417: 1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery

14151 (Part 2) : 1999 QCPE Pipes

694:1990

PVC Insulated Cables

398 (Part 2): 1996 ACSR

1554 (Part I) : 1988 PVC Insulated ( HD) Cables

694:1990

PVC Insulated Cables

1554 (Part I) : 1988 PVC Insulated ( HD) Cables

694:1990 PVC Insulated Cables

12786: 1989 PE Pipes for Irrigation Laterals [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1525

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

(4) (1) (2)

(3)

3-1-2007

13. 8776206:

AmkayCherm, H2-147, Mini Growth Centre, Phase- 1st, Sangaria, Jodhpur-342008 14. 8778917 11-1-2007

B.N. Sons , A-85 B , RoadNo.9 V.K.I. Area Jaipur-302013 15. 8779010 11-1-2007

B.N.Sons , A-85B, RoadNo.9, Vishwakarna IndustrialArea, Jaipur-302013 16. 8780702 16-1-2007

Avantika Chemicals & Metals (P) Ltd. E-48, Road No. 2, Vishwakarma Industrial Area,... Jaipur-302013 11-1-2007

17. 8779313

MohitPolytech Pvt.Ltd. , F-139, Road No.6, RIICO Industrial Area, Bindayaka, Jaipur 18. 8781094 16-1-2007

Jagdish Construction Pvt . Ltd. , 134, Peepalwa IndustrialArea, Banswara 19. 8781906 17-1-2007

Rajasthan Irrigation Co. , H- 519 A, RIICO Industrial Area, JhotwaraExt - II Sarna Dungar, Phase - II , Jaipur-302012 20. 8783001 22-1-2007 Mahaveer Gramodyog Sansthan Plot No. F- 11, RIICO Industrial Area, BIGOD, Bhilwara-311601 23-1-2007

21. 8783102

RoseCoir Foams Pvt . Ltd. , F-447, Industrial Area, PHASE -I Bhiwadi , Distt. Alwar-301019 25-1-2007

22. 8784609

Ganga Rubber Industries G1 /199, RII CO Industrial Area, Via: CHOMU Kaladera, Distt . Jaipur 22-1-2007

23. 8784306

Mangal Electrical Industries , C-61 A, Road No. 1 -C, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013 27-12-2006

24. 8774707

Ujala Pumps (P) Ltd. , F-83 , RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar. 10-1-2007.

25. 8778412

HardikGems & Jewellers , BazazaBazar Alwar

71951/073

(5)

5410:1992

Cement Paint

14255:1995 Aerial Bunched Cables

398(Part2): 1996 ACSR

398 (Part 2): 1996 ACSR

13487: 1992 IrrigationEquipments - Emitters

8112:1989 43Grade OPC

14151 (Part 2): 1999 QCPE Pipes

12269: 1987

53Grade OPC

8391:1987 Rubberised Coil Sheets for Cushioning

5382: 1985 Rubber Sealing Rings for Gas Mains , Water Mains & Sewers

14255:1995 Aerial Bunched Cables

8034:2002 Submersible Pumpsets

1417:1999 Hallmarking ofGold Jewellery 1526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

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

(1) (2) :

(4)

(5)

26. 8778816 11-1-2007

9537 (Part 3) : 1983 Rigid Plain Conduits for Insulating

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, A- 130(E) , Road No.9D, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur-302013

27. 8778311 9-1-2007

141 7:1999 Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery

Swamganga Jewellers , Khatri Street , NearNargasar Barmer-344001

8-12-2006

28. 8767912

8088: 1976 Tricycle, Hand Propelled Shree Bhagwan Mahaveer Viklang Sahayak Samiti , A- 13 , Calgiri Hospital Road, Malviya Nagar , Jaipur

[No. CMD- 1 /13 : 11 ]

S. K. CHAUDHURY , Dy. Director General (Marks )

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 766 भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम (4 ) के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

भाग अनुभाग वर्ष क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक का

शीर्षक

भा मा संख्या

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6) (7) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) 1. 76922925-1-2007

1417

पूनमज्वैलर्स 49 ,

1999 सरिया पेठ जुन्नर

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु

आभूषण/कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति

और चिन्हांकन

जिला- पुणे 410502

2-1-2007

2. 7691088

क्यूमिन्स इंडिया लिमिटेड,

10001

1981 35ए/1/2 , एरंडवणे

सामान्य उद्देश्यों की आवश्यकताओं (लो हार्स पावर बिजनेस यूनिट ) की प्राप्ति हेतु एक समान गति संपीडन दवाब प्रज्जवलन ( डीजल ) इंजिन 20 कि वा तक।

पुणे- 411038

3. 7693496 8-1-2007 श्री साई कृषि उद्योग

2000

4985

पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए अनप्लास्टिसाइज्ड पीवीसी पाइप्स

प्लॉट संख्या 14,15,16 एमआईडीसी

लातूर-413531

जाह्नवी ज्वैलर्स 572,

7694296 10-1-2007

1417

1999 सदाशिवपेठ,

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम- शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

लक्ष्मीरोड

पुणे-411030

14543

2004 जयदीप फूड्स एंड अकुआ

5. 7693092 11-1-2007

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

प्रा. लि. , प्लॉट संख्या सी-108 सूपा एमआईडीसी, तालुका पारनेर

जिला अहमदनगर

14543

2004 6. 7694906 15-1-2007 श्री साई इंडस्ट्रीज ,

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

प्लॉट संख्या-ईएल-36 प्राची फोर्ज के सामने, जिला-औरंगाबाद-431210 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1527 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

7. 7695403 8-1-2007

2002

15111 1 एवं 2

विप्रोलिमिटेड एम-56 , एमआयडीसी वालुज औरंगाबाद 431136

सामान्य प्रकाशीय सेवाओं के लिए स्वयं प्रस्फुटित लेम्पस , भाग -1 सुरक्षा आवश्यकता और भाग -2 सम्पन्न आवश्यकताएं

8. 7693803 17-1-2007

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

सचिन फूड एंड ड्रिंक्स प्लॉट संख्या सी-13/14, एमआयडीसी एरिया, चिकलथाना, जिला- औरंगाबाद

9. 7695096 19-1-2007

14543

2004

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

एम्पायर ग्रुप प्लॉट संख्या 23 , सिटी क्र. सं. 29/3/1 पुराना मुंढवा रोड खराडी पुणे 411014

10. 7695908 17-1-2007

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम - शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

' माने ज्वैलर्स दुकान संख्या 3/4 हेमी क्लासिक, पुणे सतारा रोड बालाजी नगर , धनकवडी पुणे-411043

11. 7697710 16-1-2007

9271

2004

फार्म की नालियों के लिए

प्लास्टिक पाइप

रेक्स पोलेक्सथ्रूसन लिमिटेड प्लॉट संख्या एच -5/1 एवं 2एल-7,8 एवं 9 एमआयडीसी कुपवाड एरिया जिला-सांगली 416436

12. 7702572 31-1-2007

1417

1999

स्वर्ण और स्वर्ण मिश्रधातु आभूषण/ कृत्रिम-शिल्पकृति और चिन्हांकन

परमार ज्वैलर्स सुगंधाकॉम्पलेक्स 500/501 बी, रास्तापेठ अपोलो थियेटर के पास पुणे-411 011

[सं.: सी एमडी/13: 11 ]

एस. के. चौधरी , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2007

S.O. 766. In pursuance of Sub- regulation (5) of rule 4of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification Regulation , 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedules :

SCHEDULE

SL. Licence

Name and Address

Title ofthe

IS No. Part Section Year No. No.

Grant Date

Standard

oftheParty

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) (7) (8) (9) 1. 7692292 5-1-2007

1417

1999

Gold andGold alloys, jewellery/artefacts- Fineness and marking

Poonam Jewellers 49, SariaPeth Junnar District Pune 410502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1528

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

2-1-2007

2. 7691088

Cummins India Ltd (Low Horse Power Business Unit) 35A/1/2, Erandwane Pune-411038

8-1-2007

3. 7693496

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)]

( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

1981 10001

Performance requirements for constant speed compression ignition (diesel) engine for general purposes (up to 20 kw)

2000 4985

Unplasticized PVC pipes

for potable water supplies

Shree Sai Krishi Udyog Plot No. 14, 15, 16 MIDC Latur-413531 10-1-2007

4. 7694296

1999 1417

Gold andGold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

Fineness and marking

Janhavi Jewellers 572, Sadashiv Peth Laxmi Road Pune 411030

11-1-2007

5. 7693092

Jaideep Foods & AquaPvt. Ltd.

2004 14543

Packaged drinking water

(Other than packaged

natural mineral water)

PlotNo. C-108 Supa MIDC Taluka Parner District Ahmednagar 15-1-2007

6. 7694906

2004 14543

Packaged drinking water

(Other than packaged)

natural mineral water)

Shri Sai Industries Plot No. EL-36 Infront of Prachi Forge District Aurangabad-431210 8-1-2007 .

7695403

WiproLtd. M-56, MIDC Waluj Aurangabad-431136 11-1-2007

8. 7693803

2002

1&2

15111

Self ballasted lamps for general lighting services Part 1 Safety requirements and Part 2 Performance Requirements

2004 14543

Packaged drinking water

(Other than packaged

natural mineral water )

Sachin Food and Drinks Plot No. C- 13/14 MIDC Area, Chikalthana District Aurangabad 19-1-2007

9. 7695096

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water

(Other than packaged)

natural mineral water)

EmpireGroup PlotNo. 23, City Sr. No. 29/3/1 OldMundhwa Road , Kharadi Pune -411014 17-1-2007

7695908

10.

1999

1417

Gold andGold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

Fineness and marking

Mane Jewellers Shop No. 3/4 Hamy Classic Pune- Satara Road, Balajinagar , Dhankawadi Pune 411043

2004

9271

Fram drainage plastic pipe

16-1-2007

7697710

11.

Rex Polyextrusion Ltd Plot No. H - 5/ 1 and 2 L-7,8 and 9 MIDC Kupwad Area District Sangli -416436 31-1-2007

12. 7702572

1999

1417

Gold andGold alloys ,

jewellery/artefacts-

Fineness and marking

Parmar Jewellers Sugandha Complex 500/501 , Rasta Peth Near Apollo Theatre Pune 411011

[No. CMD/13: 11] S. K. CHAUDHURY, Dy . Director General (Marks ) 1529 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 767. कोयला खान भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 46 ) के खंड 9 के उप- खंड ( 2 ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार श्री ए. एन. भ‌ट्टाचार्य, आई. ई. एस. ( 79 ) , कोयला खान भविष्य निधि आयुक्त, धनबाद को उक्त उप - खंड के प्रयोजनों के लिए 14-2-2007 ( पूर्वाहन ) से 5 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए प्राधिकारी के रूप में एतद्वारा विनिर्दिष्ट करती है ।

[सं. 20/6/2004 - एएसओ- ii ] एच. सी. अग्रवाल, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 6th March, 2007

S.O. 767. In pursuance of sub- section (2) of Section 9 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 (46 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby specifies Shri A. N. Bhattacharjee , IES (79 ), the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad as the authority with effect from 14-2-2007 ( forenoon) for a period of five years for the purposes of the said sub-section .

[No. 20/6/2004-ASO- ii ] H. C. AGRAWAL, Director

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 768. कोयला खान भविष्य निधि एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 46 ) के खंड 3सी के उप-खंड ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार श्री ए, एन. भट्टाचार्य , आई. ई. एस. ( 79 ) को कोयला खान भविष्य निधि संगठन में कोयला खान भविष्य निधि आयुक्त के रूप में 14-2-2007 ( पूवॉहन ) से 5 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , इसमें जो भी पहले हो एतद्वारा नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 20/6/2004- एएसओ- i ]

एच. सी. अग्रवाल , निदेशक

New Delhi, the 6th March, 2007

S.O. 768. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1 ) of Section 3C of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), the Central Government hereby appoints Shri A. N. Bhattacharjee, IES (79 ) as the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation with effect from 14-2-2007 (F.N. ) for a period of five years or until further orders, whichever is carlies .

[No. 20/6/2004-ASO - i ] H. C. AGRAWAL, Director

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 769.-- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) ( जिसे इसके पश्चात् 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. 3810 तारीख 20 सितम्बर, 2006 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 23 सितम्बर , 2006 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्य प्रदेश 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 पाइपलाईन 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 13 नवम्बर , 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;

1530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की 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 , निर्देश 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

सांवेर

तहसील :

जिला : इन्दौर

राज्य : मध्य प्रदेश क्र. सं.

ग्राम का नाम

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

0.0432

खाकरोद

263 ( शास चरगाह)

बरलाई जागीर

0.0324

175

0.0108

पुवारडा दाई

0.0216

175 (शास रास्ता)

135

0.0216

0.0630

0.1620

पुहपंपावारडा

0.0720

0.0810

0.0630

मच्छुखेडी

0.0810

173

0.0540

101/266/4/1

0.1620

[फा. सं. आर-31015/62/2004-ओ आर- II ]

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

New Delhi , the 14th March, 2007

S.O. 769. Whercas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3810 dated the 20th September , 2006 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 23rd 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 pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project for 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 copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on 13th November, 2006 .

And whereas 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 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 direct 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 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1531

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Sanwer

District: Indore

State : Madhya Pradesh Sl . No. NameofVillage

SurveyNo.

Area in Hectare 1

4 1.

Khakrod

0.0432

263 (Government Charagah)

Barlai Jagir

0.0324 3.

PuwardaDai

175

0.0108

0.0216

175(Government Charagah)

135

0.0216

0.0630 4.

PuwardaHappa

0.1620

0.0720

0.0810 5.

Machhukhedi

0.0630

0.0810

173

0.0540

101/266/4/1

0.1620

[F. No. R-31015/62/2004-OR -II] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी , 2007

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP /83/ 2002

Date: 25-01-2007

Petitioner :Shri Manlal Manasaram Choudhary ,

PartyNo. 1

R/ O Sonegaon, Tah . Tumsar , post- Sihora , Dist, Bhandara (M.S.)

का.आ. 770.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार रेलवे इलेक्ट्रीफिकेशन प्रोजेक्ट 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 83/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Versus

[सं. एल-41012/91/96- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] Respondent : The Divisional Engineer Telecom (H.Q. )

Party No. 2.

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

Railway Electrification Project, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur-440010 (M.S.) MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

AWARD

New Delhi , the 19th February, 2007

Dated: 25th January, 2007

S.O. 770.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/ 2002) of the Central Government Indusrial Tribunal-cum/ Labour Court, Nagpur, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Railway Electrification Project and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2007 .

1. Central Government, after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri Manlal manasaram Choudhari , R/o Sopnegaon, Tah . Tumsar , Post Sihora, Dist . Bhandra (M.S.) Party No. 1,and The Divisional Engineer Telecom (H.Q. ) Railway Electrification Project, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur -Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-41012/91 /96 - IR(B.I . ) Dt . 22-7-1997 under clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14of1947) with the following schedule .

No. L-41012/91 /96- IR (B -I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1532

2. "Whether the action of The Divisional Engineer Telecom (H.Q. ) O/o the Chief General Manager , Telecom, Railway Electrification Project, Circle 46, Bajaj Nagar , Nagpur - 10 in allegedly terminating the services of Shri Manlal Manasram Choudhari , a casual Mazdoor is legal, proper and justified ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?"

Inthe matter of dispute between President, Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress (INTUC) 43/16 Sector 15- A Sector 16 Sikandra Agra , And The DCM (CATG) Central Railway Jhansi .

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour , vide notification No. L -41011/28/98 - IR(B - I ) dated 25-2-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:-

"Whether the action of Railway Management notto keep in the services of 41 helpers of vendors and not to regularised is justified or not ? If not, what relief workman are entitled ?

3. The reference came for hearing today on 25-1-2007. The petitioner is absent, though the case is fixed for cross - examination of the management. In fact the petitioner is absent from longtime and he has not even filed any Affidavit and adduced the Evidence in support of his claim. He is not attending the court from 7-7-2003 i.e. the date on which the case was fixed for adducing the Evidence by way of Affidavit. Till the date he has not filed it. Finally the Respondent has filed an Affidavit and offered his officer for Cross -Examination . However , the petitioner is absent and since he is not attending the court the case will have to be dismissed for his default . In such circumstances the reference stands as dismissed for the default of the petitioner .

Hence this award.

Dated:25-1-2007 A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी , 2007

2. It is needless to give full facts of the case as from the reference order it is quite clear that the date of regularisation from which workers involved in the case have claimed their regularisation in the service of the railway has not been given or mentioned. If the tribunal comes at a conclusion that the action of the railway administration is neither legal nor justified in that situation question arises for consideration is as to from what date the workers be directed to be regularised in the services of the railway .

का.आ. 771.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल रेलवे 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 32/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

3. Reference order therefore appears to be redendent and on the basis of the said reference the workers cannot be granted any relief of any nature whatsoever by this tribunal . Thus the reference is answered against the workers and in favour of the railway administration .

[सं. एल -41011 /28/98- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी , 2007 New Delhi, the 19th February, 2007

का.आ. 772. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । $.O . 771.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the . Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes theAward (Ref. No. 32/99) 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 Central Railway and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 15-2-2007.

[सं. एल-41012/161/93- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L-41011/28/98- IR (B -1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

New Delhi , the 19th February, 2007 ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT , KANPUR ( U.P.)

Industrial Dispute No. 32 of99

S.O. 772. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/99) of the Centrel Govt. Indus . Tribunal -cum/Labour Court , Bangalore , now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in the relation to the

+ 1533

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

management of South Central Railway and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 15-2- 2007.

[No. L-41012/161/93 - IR (B -I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 5th February, 2007

PRESENT

Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 86/1999

1Party

IIParty

The Senior Divisional Personnel

Shri Abdul Rehman ,

to this tribunal for adjudication in the matter. She contended that the dismissal order passed against her husband was totally arbitrary and illegal without any notice of termination and without the compliance of the procedure contemplated under the rules and therefore, the order was bad in law and was in violation of principles of natural justice . She contended that even otherwise , the Disciplinary Authority who have inflicted a minor penalty for the alleged trivial misconduct keeping in view the excellent past record of herhusband and in view of the fact that the stolen property was assessed at Rs . 6. Therefore , the extreme penalty of dismissal was totally unjust and grossly out of all proportions . Therefore , the order of dismissal was unjust and excessive , illegal , arbitrary and unreasonable . She requested this tribunal to pass an award with a direction to the management to provide appointment to her children on compassionate ground in lieu of death of her husband with cost of the proceedings .

C/o Aleem Bhai ,

Officer, South Central, Hubli -580020

Anagoud, Kulkarni Hakkal, Ganeshpet,

Hubli -580020

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred thisdispute vide order No. L -41012/161/93- IR (B - I) dated 21st july 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule;

SCHEUDLE

"Whether the claim of Smt. Ameenabai Rehman, Kallura W/o late Shri Abdul Rehman that the removal of services of her husband by the management of South Central Railway was illegal and unjustified, is correct. If so , to what relief the wife of the workman isentitled ?

3. The management by its counter statement while admitting the averments in the claim statement that husband of Smt. Ameenabai was working as a Loco Khalasi and was dismissed from service in the light of the conviction order passedby JMFC Hubli, however , contended that the dispute is not maintainable for the reason that her husband was dismissed from service in the year 1982 and whereas , she raised the dispute in the year 1999. It contended tha the workman late Shri Abdul Rahman during his life tipe did not prefer any application or file any writ petison challenging the dismissal order passed against him though theconciliation proceedings ended in failure in 1997 tself. Therefore, the said proceedings and the dismisst order having reached the finality during the life tine of the deceased workman , his wife now cannot reopenthe matter having no locus standi to file any claim petitionbefore this tribunal . The management contended the when the workman was convicted in a criminal proceedings on serious charges , questiori of giving him an opportunity of hearing did not arise particularly, when he did not question the validity or otherwise of the dismissal order in his lifetime . The management in the last contended that the present claimpetitionbeing filed after a lapse of 18 years , the service records pertaining to the deceased workman as per the rules have either being destroyed or not traceable . Therefore , in case the wife of the deceased is to be allowed, the management will be put to great hardship and inconvenience and therefore , the management prayed to this tribunal to dismiss the reference .

4.During the course of trial , the management on its partexamined one Mr. A. Balachander said to be working as Divisional Personnel Officer, South Western Railway as MW1 without getting marked any document . He has just reiterated the very contentions taken by the management in the aforesaid counter statement. In his cross examination he admitted that the workman was in the service of the management for about twenty years at the time of his 2. Smt. Ammenabai , the wife of deceased workman , Shri Abdul Rehman in her claim statement before this tribunal averred that her husband was working in the cadre of Loco Khalasi since 1962 with the Second Party Management earning several promotions in his career . He was dismissed from servicew.e.f. 15-3-1982 on the ground that he suffered an order of conviction in CC No. 160/81 by the J.M.F.C. at Hubli , Theft properly involved in the said case was worth Rs. 6 that her husband preferred an appeal and revision to authorities seeking modification of the penalty but authorities did not consider his case. Left with no option her husband raised the industrial dispute before the ALC, Hubli and the conciliation proceedings ended in failure vide failure report dated 30-11-1993 . However , the matter was not referred to this tribunal by the Govt. for a quite long time. in the meanwhile her husband passed away on 24-6-1997; that she preferred a Writ Petition No. 6134/99 before the Hon'ble High Court and on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court the present reference has been made

71991/07-4 1534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26 , 1928

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

having suffered from certain delay is liable to the dismissed on this count itself. Learned counsel for the first party also took support of the following four decisions :

(1) (2002) 7 SCcases 142

(2) (2004) 8 SC cases 200

(3) (2004) 6 SC cases 482

dismissal and had no complaint or adverse remarks against him during his tenure. He was dismissed from service being convicted by the Magistrate court for the offence of theft . It was further elicited that there was no enquiry or show cause notice issued to the first party ( deceased workman) and he was dismissed from service on the basis of the said conviction. Then he admitted that the property involved in the theft case was worth Rs . 6 .

(4) ILR 2006 Kar 4374

5. Onbehalfof Smt . Aneenabai (hereinafter referred toas first party), one Mr. Mohamed Ali , one of the LRs of the deceased workman filed his affidavit by way of examination chief repeating almost the same averments as in the claim statement . In his cross -examination it was elicited that he has no document to show that his father made any representation to the management or anybody after his dismissal from service and he denied the suggestion that the dismissal order passed against his father was legal and correct on the basis of the conviction order passed against him .

6. Learned counsel for the second party vehemently argued that the order of dismissal passed a gainst the first party was quite legal and justified based or the conviction order passed against the deceased and that there was no ecessity to conduct why Domestic Enquiry against the àceased keeping in view the Rule 14 of the Railway evants (Discipline & Appeal ) Rules , 1968. He also cowended that the dispute on hand is not entertainable be. preferred after a laps of a period of 18 years and in view the fact that the deceased did no: pursue the matter with the Govt. for reference of the dispute to this tribunal though nciliation proceedings ended in failure in the year 199 itself. He relied upon the decisions reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5764 & 2001 (Ii ) LLJ Marras 48.

8. After having gone through the records I find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party . It is not in dispute that the deceased workman suffered conviction order for the offence of theft of the property worth Rs . 6 and it is on the basis of the said conviction order the management dismissed the workman from his services . It is again noi in dispute that there was neither a full fledged DE nor a summary enquiry conducted against the first party and it is in the statement of MWI that no show cause notice also was issued to the first party before he was dismissed from service and he was dismissed straight away on the basis of the said conviction order . As seen above , learned counsel for the management wants to justify the dismissal order passed against the first party on the ground that when the serious charge of misconduct i.e. theft was proved against the first party , the management thought it unnecessary to hold any sort of enquiry before passing the dismissal order and this was done by the management in accordance with Rule 14 of Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal ) Rules , 1968. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party as noted above , relied upon the decision of their Lordrship of Supreme Court which was again very much based upon the above said rule and against the present management itself. Their Lordship of Supreme Courtconsidering the pros and cons of the said rule at para 21 of the said decision have laid down the principle that " the term ' consider ' postulates consideration of all the aspects , the pros and cons of the matter after hearing the aggrieved person, such an enquiry would be summary enquiry to be held by the disciplinary authority after hearing thedelinquent employee . " Their Lordship further held that " in considering the said matter the disciplinary authority will have to take into account the entire conduct of the delinquent employee , the gravity of the misconduct committedby him , the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration and other extenuating circumstances or redeeming feature , if any, present in the case and so on and so forth " . Their Lordship further observed that 'Rule 14 merely imports a rule of natural justice in enjoining that before taking final action in the matter the deliquent employce should be heard and the circumstances of the case may be objectively considered. This is in keeping with the sense of justice and fair play. The disciplinary authority has the undoubted power after hearing the delinquent employee and considering the circumstances of the case to inflict any major penalty on the delinquent employer without any further departmental 7. V hereas, learned counsel for the first party argued that the di missal order passed aga'nst the deceased worksman is able to be set aside for the reason that neither any full fledg a domestic enquiry was conducted nor any summary enquiry was held against the deceased giving any opportuni . v of hearing to him before passing the dismissal order based on the aforesaid conviction order . In support of his arguments , learned ( unsel relied upon the decision reported in ( 1976) 3 Supreme Court page 19---the Divisional Personnel Cificer South ern Railway & Another Vs. T.R. Chellappan and Other cas s . On the point of delay learned counsel submitted that the leceased workman was suffering from serious illness and died on account of that and therefore , he could not pursue the matter with the Central Government for reference of his dispute to his tribunal after the conciliation proceedings ended in failure. He submitted that when the first party approached the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition seeking reference of the dispute, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to give directions to the Government for reference , and therefore , now it cannot be said that the first party had no locus standi to file the present claim petition or that the dispute [भाग II -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1535

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

somewhere in the year 1992 to 1993 as conciliation failed in the year 1993. Absolutely, no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the first party as to what prevented the deceased in not raising the dispute with the authority competent immediately after dismissal or within reasonable time from the date of dismissal . Though in the claim statement it is stated that he had filed appeal and revision against the dismissal unsuccessfully it is not made clear whenhe preferred any such appeal and when the appeal came tobe disposed off. Therefore , in my opinion it will not be justified in granting any back wages to the deceased workman for the period in between the date of his dismissal and the year he raised the dispute with the Conciliation Officer i.e. from the year 1982 to 1993. However, backwages cannot be denied to the deceased workman from the date of failure of the conciliation proceedings in the year 1993 till the datehe expired in the year 1997. Therefore, it is to be held that the first party as LR of deceased workman will be entitled to fullback wages along with continuity of service and other consequential benefits from 1-12-1993 till 24-6-1997 , the date on which the workman expired . Hence the following award:

AWARD

enquiry if the authority is of the opinion that the employee has been guilty of a serious offence involving moral turpitude and therefore, it is not desirable or conducive in the interests of administration to retain such a person in service' . Therefore , from the reading of the observations and principles laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court referringto the very Rule 14 now being taken support ofby the management to justify the dismissal order passed against the first party there remains absolutely no doubt in coming to the conclusion that the order ofdismissal passed against the deceased workman based on the conviction order itself without giving any opportunity of hearing to him much less conducting any summary enquiry was not in consonance with the above said Rules 14. In the aforesaid decision also their Lordship of Supreme Court dealt with the similar questions of fact and law and had confirmed the decisions of respective High Courts in quashing the orders of dismissal passed against the concerned workman only on the basis of the conviction order passed against them. Therefore, in the instant case also since the management did not conduct any summary enquiry or did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the first party before passing the dismissal order against the deceased workman, it is liable to be set aside on this count itself as illegal and void abinitio.

Themanagement is directed to pay full back wages to the LRs of the deceased workman including the first party Smt . Ameenabai which were available to the deceased workmanw.e.f. 1-12-1993 till 24-6-1997 with continuity of service and other benefits .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signedby me on 5th February , 2007)

A. R. SIDDIQUI , PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 19 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 773.- 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 श्रम न्यायालय , कोल्हापुर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/40/2003- आई आर ( डी यू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 19th Februuary, 2007 9. Now, coming to the question of the first party raising the present dispute after an inordinate delay of about 16 to 17 years from the date of the dismissal order. It was well argued for the first party that it was for the Government to refer the matter to this tribunal after the conciliation proceedings ended in failure even otherwise, when the writ petition was entertained by the Hon'ble High Court and the present reference has been made under the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, reference cannot be dismissed as bad in law on the ground of any delay. If really , the Hon'ble High Court was of the opinion that the first party had no locus sťandi to raise the dispute or that the dispute was bad on account of inordinate delay caused, then, certainly his Lordship would not have given directions to the Central Govt. to make a reference ofdispute tothis tribunal . The very fact that the Hon'ble High Court entertained the Writ Petition filed by the first party and ordered for the reference of the dispute must answer the contention taken by the management that the present dispute by the first party is entertainable and not to be rejected on account of delay itself. Moreover , now it is well settled principle of law that no amount of delay can defeat the reference ofdispute but in such a case the relief to be accorded to the disputant can be moulded accordingly.

S.O. 773. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Labour Court, Kolhapur, as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

10. In this case since the dismissal order is held in the illegal and the deceased workman is no more , the relief with regard to the back wages and other benefits to be granted to the first party are to be considered . As seen above, the deceased workman was dismissed from service in the year 1982 and it appears that he raised the dispute

[No. L-40012/40/2003 - IR (DU) ] SURENDERA SINGH, Desk Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1536

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. BHOSALE, PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURTAT KOLHAPUR

Reference (IDA) No. 57/2003

employee . On all these counts it is prayed that as second party workman's services were terminated without due process of law, the first partybe directed to reinstate the second party with continuity of service and to reinstate him as permanent employec .

BETWEEN:

Sub-Divisional Engineer ,

...First party

CoaxialMaintenance Unit, Now-Microwave Maintenance Unit, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Satara, Powai Naka Unit, Satara, District-Satara

And

3. The first party appeared and filed his written statement Ex . C- 6. It is contended that the second party was never appointed on regular basis at Coaxial Station, Satara during 1-12-1992 to 30-11-1997 as Sweeper . Shiri S.D. Kodolikar , Sub- Divisional Engineer, Coaxial Station, Satara had issued certificate dated 17-2-1995 that services of Raju Bajirao Mane are utilised as wet and dry sweeper on few occasions during the last year in Coaxial building on casual basis . Therefore , his contention that he was engaged continuously till 30-11-1997 is false . It is averred that as the second party never worked continuously his claim of any reliefbe rejected.

...Second party

Shri Raju Bajirao Mane, R/o . 546, Karanje Peth, Buddh Vihar , Karanje turf Satara, District-Satara

Coram: ShriS.M. Bhosale, Presiding Officer

4. On the basis of pleadings , issues were framed by then learned Presiding Officer at Ex . 0-7 which are reproduced as under :--

Advocates: Shri P.B. Dakave, Advocate , for the second party.

The First party is absent .

AWARD

(1) Does the second party prove that he was engaged by the Coaxial Maintenance Unit, now known as Microwave Maintenance of BSNL , Satara as Sweeper since 1-12-1992 to 30-11-1997 ?

(Date: 6-2-2007)

(2) Does he further prove that termination of his service is illegal and improper ?

(3) Whether the second party is entitled for reinstatement with continuity and full back wages as prayed ?

(4) What Award ?

5. My findings on aforesaid issues , followed by reasons thereof, are as under : --

This is a reference sent by the Ministry of Labour , Government of India, New Delhi for adjudication of Industial Dispute between the first party employer and the second partyworkman in terms whether second party was engaged by the first party as a Sweeper continuously during the period from 1-12-1992 to 30-11-1997 and if so, the termination/disenagement of the second party without any notice and compensation is legal and justified and to what relief the second party workman is entitledto.

(1) Yes .

(2) Yes.

(3) As per final Award .

(4) As per final Award.

REASONS

6. The second party workman has filed his claim affidavit at Ex . U - 11 . It is pertinent to note that the said affidavit has gone unchallenged as subsequently after filing written statement the first party not appeared. It is also to be noted that the first party not adduced any oral evidence . Heard learned Advocate Shri P.B. Dakave appearing on behalf of the second party .

7. Issue No. 1 to 4 :-The sum and substance of claim of secondparty is that he worked since 1-12-1990 to 30-11-1997 with Coaxial Unit of first party as a sweeper and thus, there is relationship of employer and employce . It is further affirmed that he worked continuously for more than 240days and his service was terminated orally on 1-12-1997 2. After receipt of reference , notices were sent to both parties . Second party appeared and filed his statement ofclaimEx. U -4. It is contended that the second party was working with the first party since 1990 till 1997 continuously as a sweeper . He has narrated all the duties performed by him during his service with the first party . His service was terminated orally by Shri Kulkarni. Sub- Divisional Engineer, Coaxialdepartment of the first party . Before termination no compliance of Sec . 25 -F of the Act is made . It is further contended that he was appointed in the year 1990 at Powai Naka, Satara by Sub -Divisional Engineer by oral order. The Sub -Divisional Engineer is affiliated to Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lid . The second party worked continuously from 1-12-1990 to 30-11-1997. Though he was paid less wages than entilled to he continuously worked for seven years . The oral termination amounts to illegal termination . It is further contended that after termination he made various correspondence however, the first party has replied that the second party is not concerned with the first party . It is also averred that the second party was a permanent 1537

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

by Shri Kulkarni, then Sub-Divisional Engineer, Coaxialunit, satara. His testimony on oath has gone unchallenged.

documents because there is neither pleading nor evidence that the first party has given either attendance card or pay- slip. In absence of those documents and more specifically when the evidence of the second party has remained unchallenged, in my humble judgment, the conclusion can bewell drawn that the second party discharged his initial burden to prove that he worked for 240 days. It is the case thathis service was orally terminated. It is to be noted that it is notpleaded or averred in the written statement that the first party never terminated service of the second party as alleged. It is needless to say that oral termination is bad in law. In the present case at hand no due process of law before terminating service is followed.

8. Learned Advocate Shri Dakave vehemently submitted that once the testimoney of second party has gone unchallenged it is required to be accepted in toto.He has brought to my notice documents filed alongwith affidavit i.e. certificate dated 17-2-1995 which speaks that till the date of issuance of certificate the second partywas working for few occasions in coaxial building on casual basis as wet and dry sweeper. Further the letter dated 15-2-1997 speaks that request of the second party for recruitment of post of sweeper in the department of Telecommunication was refused as he was engaged as sweeper by coaxial wing ofthe department on purely casual basis. Thus , letter itself is sufficient to conclude that the secondpartywas employed by the Coaxial wring which is one of the department of Telecommunication . Learned Advocate Shri Dakave vehemently submitted that this Court has ordered to produced documents as per order Ex . U-8 the same are not produced by the first party andhence adverse inference is required to be drawn. In support of his arguments he placed reliance in the case of M/ s . Z.F. Steering Gears (India) V/s Shri Ramchandra S. Tapkir reported in 2006 (5) All MR 241 wherein it is observed that:--

"Specific application made by complainant seeking production of certain documents as to establish his case-Document neither produced nor any explanation was furnished by the employer as to why those documents could not be produced-held, in the absence of any explanation in this behalf the Court below was perfectly justified in drawing an adverse inference ."

He also placed reliance in the case of Century Rayon (ADivision of Century Textiles & Industries Ltd. V/s Shri Anand Dadu Ubale reported in 2006 (1 ) All MR (NOC)46 wherein it is held that:

10. Once it is held that the termination is bad in law thenatural consequence would be second party is entitled for reinstatement. However, it is to be noted that the second party is a casual employee . From his pleadings itself it is very much clear that the second party was appointed on 1-12-1990 orally by Shri Kodolikar then Sub- Divisional Engineer. Now it is well settled law that in Government service appointment should be by due process of law. Therefore , in my humble judgment , taking into consideration the law laid down in the cases of (1 )Municipal Council ofSujanpur V/s Surendra Kumar reported in 2006 II CLR643, (2) Secretary State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi reported in 2006 II CLR 261 , (3 ) Jaipur Development Authority V/s Ram Sahay reported in 2007 I CLR 221 and (4) Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals V/s Workmen of IndianDrugs and Pharmaceutical reported in 2007 I CLR48 thesecond party is not entitled for reinstatement. However, as he has rendered continuous service of seven years his service was orally terminated it will be necessary to compensate him. Taking into consideration the fact that the employment of the second party is a back - door entry, acompensation of Rs . 25,000 would be just and proper. Accordingly, I answer aforesaid issues and proceed to pass following award:-

AWARD

(i) The claim of second party workman is partly allowed.

(ii) The first party is ordered to pay to the secondparty workman a compensation of Rs . 25,000.

(iii) No Order as to costs .

Kolhapur

Date: 6-2-2007

"Complainants engaged for years as temporary workmen-Employer failing to establish through evidence that work was of an intermitent nature- Evidence of workmen showing that work was regular, perennial and permanent in character- Findings of Industrial Court showing that work was continuously available both the HeadOffice and at godown where applicants worked for several years -Order of Industrial Court granting benefit of permanency and payment of consequential benefits -held, proper."

S. M. BHOSALE, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 फरवरी, 2007 का.आ. 774- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार 9. Application Ex . U - 8 was for production of documents and more specifically the wage register and vouchers for the period 1-12-1990 to 30-11-1997. In my humble judgment, when from the documents placed on record i.e. letters dated 17-12-1995 and 25-12-1997 it is not disputed that the second party was working as sweeper with the Coaxial building of the first party it was incumbent on part of the first party to bring on record all those 1538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

औद्योगिक, अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय कोची, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011/14/2005- आई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 19th February, 2007 S.O. 774. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court, Kochi , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Governmention 19-2-2007.

[No. L-40011/14/2005- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , 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 5th day of February, 2007/ 16th Magha, 1928)

I.D. 10/2005

Workman/Union : The General Secretary, Personal Staff Association D-502, PraneyNagar , Ram Mandir Road, Extension Borivali, Mumbai .

Management : The Chief General Manager B.S.N.L. , Kerala Circle

PMG Junction

Thiruvananthapuram.

AWARD

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication. The reference is :--

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum in not sanctioning Assured Career Progression ( ACP ) to the eligible employees in the cadres of Stenographers , Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries, is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date?""

2. When the matter came up for hearing both sides submitted that the matter is settled amicably between the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] parties out of court and the union does not want to procced with the dispute. Hence it has to be found that there is no subsisting dispute between the two parties .

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the demand of the union for sanctioning Assured Career Progression ( ACP) to the eligible employees in the cadre of Stenographers , Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries is satisifed by the management and no further relief need be granted to the employees . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 5thday of February, 2007 .

P.L NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX NIL--

नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 775, -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम, कोची, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 296/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार व्यो 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -41012/59/99- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th February , 2007 S.O. 775.-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (296/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum -Labour Court, Ernakulam, Kochi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

[No. L-41012/59/99 - IR( B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 9th day of February, 2007 / 20th Magha, 1928 )

I.D. 296/2006

(I.D. 52/99 of Labour Court, Ernakulam 1539 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

Workman/Union : Shri S. Ayyan C/o General Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union, Edappally North Kochi-24.

Court, Ernakulam, Kochi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar

Management:

[No. L-41012/60/99 - IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The Divisional Personnel Officer , Southern Railway, Palakkad -678 001.

Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian

AWARD

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 )( d) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to this court for adjudication. The reference is:

Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 9th day of February, 2007/ 20th Magha, 1928 ) I.D. 295/2006

(I.D. 51/99 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Workman/Union :

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway , Palghat in terminating the service of Shri S. Ayyan, Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Shri A. Murugan C/oGeneral Secretary, Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union Edappally North Kochi-24.

Adv . Shri C. Anil Kumar

Management: The Divisional Personnel Officer , Southern Railway , Palakkad -678 001 . Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian 2. On notice both sides entered appearance . When the matter came up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

AWARD

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to this court for adjudication . The reference is :

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri S.Ayyan, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any releif.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 9thday of February , 2007.

P. LNORBERT, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway, Palghat in terminating the service of Shri A. Murugan, Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified? If not, what relief the workman isentitled to?"

APPENDIX : NIL

नईदिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

2. On notice both sides entered appearance . When the matter came up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

का.आ. 776.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम , कोची, के पंर्चाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 295/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/60/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri A.Murugan, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any releif, New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 9thday of February, 2007.

P. L NORBERT, PresidingOfficer S.O. 776. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (295/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour APPENDIX: NIL [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1540

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

28-2-1981 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. On notice both sides entered appearance. When the matter camp up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

का.आ. 777.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 क़ा 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण इरनाकुलम , कोची के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. आईटी-294/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/61/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri M. Arumugham, Tranship porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitledto any relief.

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 9thday of February, 2007.

P.L. NORBERT Presiding Officer

APPENDIX: NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

S.O. 777. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 294/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam , Kochi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe managerment of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2- 2007.

[No. L-41012/61/99- IR (B. -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 778 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के.. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण इरनाकुलम , कोची के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं.-292/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

[सं. एल-41012/54/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] Present: Shri P.L. Norbert, LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday, the 9th February, 2007/20th Magha, 1928 )

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी Industrial Dispute No. 294/2006

New Delhi , the 20th February , 2007 (L.D.50/99 of Labour Court , Ernakulam)

Workman/Union

: Shri M. Arumugham , C/o General Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual LabourUnion Edappally North Kochi -24

Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar .

S.O. 778. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 292/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Ernakulam, Kochi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

Management

[No. L-41012/54/99 - IR (B -.I )] : The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Palakkad-678 001

Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

AWARD

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this court for adjudication. The reference is:

Present: Shri P.L. Norbert , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Friday, the 9th February , 2007/20th Magha, 1928 Industrial Dispute No. 292/2006 "Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway, Palghat in terminating the service of Shri M. Arumugham, Tranship Porter with effect from 1541 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2007 (L.D.48/99 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

: Shri P. Chamy

Workman/Union

C/ o General Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual

LabourUnion

Edappally North Kochi -24

Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar .

Management

S.O. 779. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 290/ 2006)of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam, Kochi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Southen Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

: The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Palakkad-678001

[No. L-41012/49/99 - IR (B. -I) ] ALAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian

ANNEXURE

AWARD

IN THE CENTRAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 (1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this court for adjudication . The reference is:

Present :Shri P.L. Norbert, LL.B. , Presiding Officer

Friday, the 9th February, 2007

Industrial Dispute No.290/2006

(I.D.46/99 ofLabour Court, Ernakulam)

: Shri P. Kandamuthan "Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway, Palghat in terminating the service of Shri P. Chamy, Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Workman/Union

C/ o General Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union Edappally North Kochi -24

Adv . Shri C. Anil Kumar .

Management

2. On notice both sides entered appearance . When the matter camp up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party.The name of the worker was called absent. There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

: The Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Palakkad -678001

Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian

AWARD

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri P. Chamy, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this court for adjudication . The reference is:

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 9th dayofFebruary, 2007.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

APPENDIX : NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway, Palghat in terminating the service of Shri P. Kandamuthan, Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 779.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण इरनाकुलम , कोची के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. - 290/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. On notice both sides entered appearnace . When the matter camp up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

[सं. एल-41012/49/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

71991/ 07-5 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 1542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

AWARD

Shri P. Kandamuthan , Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 9th dayof February, 2007 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

1.This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub section 1 ofSection10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short) vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi Order No. L - 41012/214/2003 - IR (B - I ) dated 23-1-2004 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are asfollows:

APPENDIX NIL

नईदिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. in not granting the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to Shri Atmaram D. Shejwadkar w.e.f. 16-9-1991 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

का.आ. 780.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोंकण रेलवे कारपोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक, अधिकरण- I, मुम्बई , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 16/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/214/2003- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 20th February, 2007

S.O. 780.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 16/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - I , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corpn . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

[No. L-41012/214/2003 - IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2.The statement of claim has been filed by the Vice- President of Hava Sheva General Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union ) who espoused the claim of Mr. Atmaram D. Shejwadkar ( hereinafter referred to as the workman ) . The Industrial dispute was raised by the Union on behalf of the workman . The contention of the Union is that as per the policy decision of the management contained in its letter dt. 05-07-1991 , the workman was entitled to be granted the pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040 being agraduate candidate and attending to the work in the nature ofofficeAssistant w.e.f. 16-9-1991 . The representation of the workman was not considered while other workmen similarly placed were granted the aforesaid scale and thus , the workman was discriminated. The names of the other similarly placed workmen have been given in para 4 of the Statement of Claim . It is contended that the right of the workman vide circular di.. 05-7-1991 has been depreived . The senior Accounts Officer of the Management by its letter dt . 27-8-98 addressed to the Chief Personnel Officer , theManagement certifical that the workman is a graduate in Commerce and was clischarging the dutics of Office Assistant while working under Dy . C.E. Kumta, Honnavar , Land Cell , SAO /Karwar . The workman has not been granted the pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040 w.e.f. 16-9-1991 illegally .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 16 of 2004

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.

And

Theirworkmen

APPEARANCES

Shri G. Naik, Adv.

For the Management

Forthe workmen

Shri J. P. Sawant Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 6th day of February , 2007

The Management of Konkan Railway Corporation filed the written statement and contended that the claim of the workman is untenable and misconceived . The Union has no right to represent the workman. It is further contended that the workman was appointed as Typist (Kannada) on daily wages basis @ Rs . 40/- w.e.f 16-9-1991 by Chief Engineer ( Karwar ) for specified period of three months . His term of appointment was further extended upto 31-3-1992 vide Office order dt. 13-12-1991 . The workman requested for change of category of ministerial staff vide applicationdt . 16-3-1992 . His application was not considered. On completion of six months on daily wages , the workman was granted consolidated pay from 16-3-92 and regular pay of Rs . 950-1050 (RPS )/3050-4500 (RSRP) w.e.f. 16-9-1992 as per policy of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. notified by letter No. KR /CO /P /O dt. 5-7-1991. Thereafter , the workman was empanelled for the post of Office Assistant/Accounts Assistant in the 1543 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040 (RPS)/4500-7000 (RSRP) vide office order No. 96/98 dt . 23-2-1998 after following due procedure in' that regard. The industrial dispute has been raised by the workman after a period of ten years and hence, it is not maintainable. The claim of the workman is not acceptable since he was not appointed as Clerk at the time of the initial appointment .

claim. 4.Theworkman filed the rejoinder and reiterated his

5. The workman filed his own affidavit in support of his case in lieu of examination in chief . He has been cross- examined by the learned counsel for the management .

6. Themanagement filed affidavit of Shri Nalinkshan , Regional Personnel Officer (Karwar) in lieu of his examination in chief. He has been cross - examined by the learned counsel for the workman. There is nothing worth inhis cross -examination .

7. The parties have filed the documents which are not in dispute, and they have been duly exhibited.

8. The first point to be seen is as to whether the Union has a right to expouse the claim. Nothing has been filedby the Union to justify its authority to raise the dispute on behalf of the workman . Nothing has been shown by the workman in the rejonider as to how the Union is authorized; nor anything is ther in the affidavit of the workman as to how the Union is authorized. The specific plea raisedby theManagement for challenging the authority of the Union has not been met by the workman . Hence , the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the Union has no right to riase the industrial dispute and maintain the reference.

pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040 in view of the circular dt. 5-7-1991 . The contention of the workman that he was also working as Office Assistant from the very beginning cannot be accepted as basis for grant of higher pay scale in view of the designation as Typist (Kannada) awarded to the workmanwho was appointed for a specific period of three months which was again extended for a period of three months as per the aforesaid circular dt. 5-7-1991 . He was granted consolidated pay scale after completion of six months fixed period for service and thereafter, he was granted the pay scale of Rs . 950-1050 after six months w.e.f. 16-9-1992 . All this was done in accordance with the circular and I do not find that any violation of law or discrimination as alleged . The letter dt . 27-8-1998 written bySeniorAccounts Officer to the Chief Personnel Officer hasbeenperused by me. It only goes to show that the Sr. Accounts Officer requested the Head Office to consider the request of the workman . This request was considered by the Head Office and he was granted pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040 . This letter did not entitle the workman to claim the aoresaid pay scale right from the date w.e.f. 16-3-1992 as claimed in the statement of claim . Since the workman was appointed for a specific work as Typist ( Kannada) he could not claim as of right the aforesaid pay scale which was granted by the management to other workmen in lieu oftheir different designations and nature of work. Had the workman not been appointed for a specific post of Typist (Kannada) he would have certainly been entitled to the pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040. There is no discrimination with other alleged similarly placed workmen. No other workmen was ever appointed as Typist (Kannada) . It is immaterial as to whether the work of Typist (Kannada) was very much there or not and he was also utilized for othe work as Office Assistant . As soon as Sr. Accounts Officer realized the position and requested the Head Office for grant of pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040 to the workman , the workman was granted. I do not find any illegality or discrimination in the eyeof law.

9. The next point to be considered is that the claim is delayed one . It is the admitted position that the dispute has been riased with inordinate delay. The demand of the claim was made for the first time in the year 1998 after the workman was granted the pay scale of Rs . 1200-2040. I do not find sufficient reasons to ignore the delay and laches on the part of the workman .

11. Hence ; I conclude that the action of the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited in not granting the scale of Rs . 1200-2040 w.e.f. 16-9-1991 to the workman isjustified. An Award is made accordingly .

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 781. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक , अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम , कोची, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 300/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41012/62/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 10. Now, I come on merits . The admitted position is that the workman was appointed w.e.f. 16-9-1991 as Typist (Kannada) for a fixed period of three months which was extended further by three months and after completion of the period of six months , the workman was placed for a consolidated wages and subsequently in the pay scale of 950-1050 w.e.f. 16-3-1992 , as per policy vide circular dt. 5-7-1991 . I have gone through the circulardt . 5-7-1991 Its violation as alleged by the workman is not found tobe there at all . The only hurdle which stood in granting the desired pay scale to the workman was that he was initially appointed as Typist ( Kannada) . He was never appointed as Typist Clerk . He made request for change of his designation but his request was not granted . The other persons employed as Typist Clerks had been given the [PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1544

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007

Shri C.S. Abdulkhader, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any releif.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 9th dayofFebruary, 2007.

P. L NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX: NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007 S.O. 781.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 300/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam, Kochi, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

[No. L-41012/62/99- IR (B. -I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

का.आ. 782. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, इरनाकुलम , कोची, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 299/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । PRESENT

[सं. एल-41012/67/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी Fridaythe 9th day of February, 2007/20th

Magha,1928)

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007.

I.D. 300/2006

(I.D. 58/99 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Shri C.S. Abdulkhader

Workman/Union :

C/oGeneral Secretary

Dakshin Railway Casual Labour

Union, Edappally North

Kochi-24.

S.O. 782. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 299/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam, Kochi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Govemment on 19-2-2007.

Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar

[No. L-41012/67/99- IR (B - I ) ] TheDivisional Personnel Officer

Management :

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Southern Railway

Palakkad-678001 .

ANNEXURE

Adv. Shri M.C. Cherian

AWARD

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer 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:

(Friday the 9th day of February , 2007/20th

Magha, 1928)

I.D. 299/2006

(I.D. 57/99 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) "Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway. Palghat in terminating the service of Shri C.S.Abdulkhader , Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Workman/Union : Shri C. Kunjuvelan C/ o General Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union, Edappally North Kochi -24.

Adv . Shri C. Anil Kumar

Management:

2 On notice both sides entered appearance . When the master came up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway Palakkad-678 001 .

Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian 3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of 1545

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

ANNEXURE

AWARD

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOURCOURT, ERNAKULAM

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 )( d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947to this court for adjudication. The reference is:

PRESENT

SHRI P. L. NORBERT, B.A., LL.B. , PresidingOfficer

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway, Palghat in terminating the service of Shri C. Kunjuvelan, Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

(Fridaythe 9th day of February, 2007/20th Magha, 1928)

L.D. 297/2006

(I.D. 54/99 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) 2. On notice both sides entered appearance. When the matter came up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had not instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

Workman/Union: Shri K. Ayyan C/oGeneral Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union EdappallyNorth Kochi-24. Adv. Shri C. Anil Kumar 3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri C. Kunjuvelan, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any releif.

Management: TheDivisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway Palakkad- 678001.

Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 9th day of February, 2007.

AWARD

P. L. NORBERT , PresidingOfficer

APPENDIX: NIL

This is areference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 )(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this court for adjudication. The reference is:

नई दिल्ली , 20 फरवरी , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway , Palghat in terminating the service of Shri K. Ayyan, Tranship Porter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified? If not, what reliefthe workman isentitled to?"

का.आ. 783- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 क. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक, अधिकरण , इरनाकुलम , कोची, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 297/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/53/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2007

2. On notice both sides entered appearance. When the matter came up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent . There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication.

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri K. Ayyan, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any releif.

S.O. 783. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (297/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Ernakulam, Kochi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 9th dayof February, 2007.

[No. L-41012/53/99-IR (B. -I) ]

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX: NIL

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer 1546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) नईदिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

2. On notice both sides entered appearance. When the matter came up for consideration the counsel for the workman reported that he had no instructions from his party. The name of the worker was called absent. There is no point in keeping the reference pending . The reference was made to the Labour Court on 16-6-1999 . In the circumstances I find that there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication .

का.आ. 784.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय इरनाकुलम , कोची के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 302/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-02-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41012/64/99- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क, अधिकारी

3. In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri C.Kuppan, Tranship Porter w.e.f. 28-2-1981 is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 9th day of February, 2007.

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

APPENDIX: NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

S.O. 784. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 302/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Ernakulam , Kochi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2007.

[No. L-41012/64/99 - IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 785.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 277/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

[ सं. एल -12012/362/96- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007 Shri P.L.. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 19th day of February, 2007/20th Magha, 1928 )

I.D. 302/2006

(I.D. 60/99 of Labour Court , Ernakulam)

Workman/Union : Shri C. Kuppan

C/oGeneral Secretary, Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union Edappally North , Kochi24.

Adv . Shri C. Anil Kumar

S.O. 785. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (reference No. 277/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2007.

Management:

[No. L - 12012/362/96- IR (B - II) RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway, Palakkad-678 001 . Adv . Shri M.C. Cherian

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AWARD

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO.CGIT /LC/R/277 /97

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this court for adjudication . The reference is :

PresidingOfficer , Shri C.M. Singh

The President,

"Whether the action of the management of Southern Railway , Palghat in terminating the service of Shri C.Kuppan, Tranship Proter with effect from 28-2-1981 is justified ? If not, what reliefthe workman is entitled to" ?

...Workman/Union

MP Bank Employees Association , C/o. Punjab National Bank , Near Shankar Talkies , Po Jagdalpur , Distt. Bastar (MP) 1547

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 20th February , 2007 Versus

TheDy, General Manager ,

....Management

Canara Bank, Circle Office, Marshall House , Hanuman Road, Parliament Street, NewDelhi .

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of February, 2007

S.O. 786. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No.61/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on20-2-2007.

[No. L- 12012/78/94- IR (B - II) ] 1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/362/96/IR (B - II) dated 22-26-9-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

RAJINDER KUMAR,, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank Circle Office, New Delhi in not paying full wages to Shri Avtar Singh Kebhansia, clerkw.e.f. 3-6-96 to 3-12-96 amounts to violation of clause 5 of Bipartite settlement dated 8-9-83 ? If so, towhat relief is the workman entitled to"?

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

CaseNo. I.D. 61/94

2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 13-10-97 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements ofclaim.

Sh. Prem Chand S/o Sh . Harbans Lal , R/o Chand Shlie machine, Gali No. 5, Partap Nagar, Bhatinda (Pb .)

.Applicant

Versus

TheRegional Manager, Bank of India, Ludhiana (Pb . )

....Respondent

APPEARANCES :

H.S. Bath .

FortheWorkman

SH . N. K. Zakhmi .

Forthe Management :

AWARD

3. Vide order dated 2-11-2006 , the reference proceeded exparte against the workman/Union as no one putin appearance on behalf of workman/Union inspite of sufficient service ofnotice on the workman/Union and thus no statement of claim was filed on behalf of the workman. The ordersheet dated 9-2-2007 disclosed that it was the date fixed for the management for filing written statement, ifany. But no one appeared on behalf of the parties on the above date and under the circumstances, this tribunal was left with no other alternative than to close the reference for award. The reference was, therefore, closed for award .

Passed on 16-1-2007

Central Government . vide notification No. L- 12012/ 78/94/IR (B.II ) dated 28-7-1994 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

4. It appears from the above that the parties have no intrest in the reference as none of them appeared inspite of having sufficient notice of the reference . Under the circustances , it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award. Consequently no dispute award is passed without any order as to costs .

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Ludhiana in terminating the services of Sh. Prem Chand, Sub- staff w.e.f. 17-7-1993 is justified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to?" 5. Copy of the awardbe sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

2. Workman filed the claim statement and submitted that he was engaged as peon/water boy on 14-3-92 at Bhatinda and his services were terminated on 17-7-93 without any rhyme and reason without any charge sheet enquiry notice or compensation . It is further. submitted that Sarvshri Somu, Pilli etc. were employed after the termination of the services of the workman and the management violated the provisions of Section 25 F, G and Hof the I.D. Act and in terms of the Bank awards . He also remained unemployed after the termination ofservice .

का.आ. 786.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , नं 1 ,चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/94) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/78/94- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

3. The management in written statement in preliminary objection submitted that petitioner was intermittently engaged purely on contract basis to fetch water boy the branch manager and he was never put on roll of the bank and there is no relationship of master and 1548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

He also denied that monthly payments were made to the workman. The bank has no wages register . He has brought the attendance register in original . Sonu, Pilli not engaged to his knowledge . The workman also did not work continuously from 15-3-1992 to 16-7-93 .

servant between the workman and the management . The reference is without jurisdiction and hence devoid of any force. It is submitted that the workman never engaged by themanagement bank, therefore, the question of termination of their services does not arise . No person in the name of Sonu, Pilli were engaged by the management and the management has not violated any provisions of the I.D. Act. 1947.

4. Rejoinder also filed by the workman in which he categorically submitted that he worked for more than 240 days in the bank .

5. Both the parties have filed affidavits in evidence and witnesses were examined and cross -examined by the rival advocates of the parties .

8. Learned counsel for the management submitted thatworkman left the job and he was not terminated. So there was no question of payment of retrenchment compensation and notice . He produced payment vouchers Ex . M2 to M85 but relevant vouchers for the period from 17-7-93 to 17-7-92 i.e. M4 to M65 . Last voucher of the date is 13-7-93 and counting working days from the vouchers , 240 days are not completed and period is less than 240 days and is only are less than 240 days on counting . Workman case is shattered by the evidence of the workman itself. He submitted that as per claim statement, workman has no where submitted that he worked more 240 days in a calender year from the date of termination prior to 17-7-93 . He also submitted that workman does not come under the definition of workman U / s 2( a) as it is oral contract as the same is clear from the para 2 of the affidavit of MW1 .

6. Detailed arguments heard as advanced by the learned counsel for the workman and learned counsel for the management . Learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman has proved his claim only by evidence of the management itself. He submitted that workmanwas engaged as peon/ water boy on 14-3-1992 at Bhatinda and was terminated on 17-7-1993 without any rhyme and reason, without any charge sheet enquiry notice or compensation and some Sonu . Pilli'etc . were employed afterhis termination which is clear violation of Section 25F, G&H of the I.D. Act . 1947. He further submitted that management though denied that workman has completed 240 days service preceding one year from 17-7-1993 . He submitted that MW1 produced documents of working of more than 240 days as workman has worked continuously from 14-3-1992 to 17-7-1993 . He also submitted that workman completed 240 days and subsequent to his termination one Sonu, Pilli and other were employed which is clear violation ofprovisons of Section 25 of the I.D. Act . 1947 . The workman was not issued any notice and pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation and he is to be reinstated from the date of termination.

9. While summing up his arguments he submitted that MW1 was the officer who was there as manager at the relevant time from 17-7-92 to 17-7-1993 , this witness in cross-examination by the workman specifically deposed that he had personal knowledge of the case as he was the manager at that time and they were keeping the water boys on contractbasis and payment made for the day he worked . He denied that monthly payment were made to the workman nor it is proved by the workman rather bank produced & proved by payment vouchers , payment vouchers were produced by the management as demanded by the workman. He also brought the original attendance register where name of the workman was not there . He also denied that Sonu , Pilli were engaged by the bank . On the other hand workman himself in cross - examination admitted that he was engaged for fetching water to the branch @ Rs . 30 per day. In claim statement he has alleged that he was made payment as peon- cum- water boy just to show that he was appointed for regular work which is not true .He also admitted that he was paid wages for the day he fetch water for the bank . The branch manager had engaged him inthebranch to fetch water from outside . No appointment letter was given to him in writing and he was not engaged through employment exchange . No advertisement was made in the News Papers by the branch manager . He was also not recruited through banking service recruitment board . His attendance was not marked in attendance register of regular employees but marked separately . Workman also admitted thathe was earning Rs . 600 thereafter in the year 1999.

7. In reply to the above submission of the learned counsel for the workman . Learned counsel for the management submitted that it is wrong that workman case isprovedby the affidavit of the management . He submitted that in this Case Mr. D.P. Bhateja MW1 was the office officer incharge at the relevant time and he is conversant with the facts of this case. He submitted that workman case was not proved by the cross - examination of the management witness rather the evidence of the workman i.e. cross - examination of the workman and that of the management witness totally shatter the case of he workman. He submitted that workman never completed 240 days preceding his termination from 17-7-1993 to 18-7-92 . Не also submitted that management produced documents i.e. payment vouchers . He submitted that as per cross- examination of MW1 , MW1 deposed that he had the personal knowledge of the case as he was the manager fromMay 1991 to May 1992 and from May 1993 to April 1995. He submitted that they are keeping water boys on contractbasis and they were paid for the days they worked.

10. Learned counsel for the management submitted that relying on the judgment of Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 10-4-06 wherein it is held that workman not employed through legal procedure has no right for regularization and no right accrue 1549

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Chandigarh 16-1-2007

sub-staff w.e.f. 17-7-93 is just and his termination is justified, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered in favour of the bank Central Government be informed. File be consigned to record. RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

to them as it is a back door entry. He submitted that workman worked for some days intermittently and not regularly, workman failed to prove that he was appointed as peon -cum- water boy and that he worked continuously 14-3-1992 to 17-7-1993 burden is on him to prove thathe worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and his services were terminated on 17-7-93 and that some Sonu, Pilli and other were recruited after the termination of the workman. The workman has not produced any evidence to prove andhence there is no violation of any provisions of Section 25F,G&H of I.D. Act 1947. Therefore, the action of the management of Bank of India, Ludhiana in terminating the services of Shri Prem Chand, sub staff w.e.f. 17-7-93 is just and workman is not entitled to any relief.

का.आ. 787.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र कै संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 231/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/247/97- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th February , 2007

S.O. 787. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ReferenceNo. 231/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2007.

[No. L- 12012/247/97- 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 11. In view of the submissions of both the parties and my perusal of the evidence and record, I have found that in this case workman has not claimed in his claim statement that he completed 240 days in a calender year precedingto the date of termination specifically. He simply stated that his services were terminated on 17-7-93 and that he was appointed as peon -cum -water boy on 14-3-92. I have found that in evidence workman admitted that he was appointed only water boy to fetch water for the bank. He also failed to prove that he worked continuously from the date as mentioned in the claim statement from 14-3-92 to 17-7-93 and he was paid for the days he worked in the bank, further more as pointed out by the learned counsel for the management no payment was made to him by the bank. All the vouchers clearly shows that payment was made to the manager for reimbursement of the expenses incurredby him ofthe payment by him to the casual workers . Workman also failed to bring any evidence that Sonu, Pilli or any other workman were ever employed after the termination of the workman. On the other hand MW1 who was the relevant manager at the time of the workman clearly denied in his affidavit as well as in cross-examination that these two above referred or any other person ever employed after the termination of the workman. Workman did not produce any evidence that he worked for more than 240 days as counting the days from the payment vouchers Ex . M4 toM65 and he worked for these days which is less than 240 days .

(Thursday the 15th day of February, 2007) I.D. 231/2006 (ID, 39/98 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Workman/Union :

Association Narayana Building, Puzhaya Nadakkavu

TheGeneral Secretary Indian Bank Employees Thrissur. Adv . H.B. Shenoy

The Zonal Manager

Management:

Indian Bank ZonalOffice Ernakulam.

Adv . M/s . Easwaran & Mani .

12. In view of the above as workman failed to prove that he worked continuously for more than 240 days and that Sonu, Pilli and any other person were ever employed or that he was appointed as peon - cum- water boy and was paidmonthly. On the other hand the management proved that workman was engaged as water boy to fetch water for thebranch from out side and was paid for the day he worked inthe branch and payment was made to him by the branch manager and the bank reimbursed the said amount to the branch manager which was paid to the casual workers through payment vouchers . In view of the above I am of the considered view that workman failed to prove its claim as above and on the other hand management has proved that the action of the management of Bank of India, Ludhiana in terminating the services of Shri Prem Chand, 71991/07-6 1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

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

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication . The reference is:-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in denying the graduation allowance to Shri Vijayan Narendran, Clerk/Shroff, w.e.f. 5-12-1992 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :

The workman joined as Clerk in Indian Bank in 1984. At the time of joining he had completed 10+2 examination . Subsequently he passed examination in Master ofArts in Historyfrom the University of Mysore in 1992. According to the workman, he applied for graduation allowance to the bank after obtaining M.A. degree certificate.However the bank did not grant . The workman is, eligible to get graduation allowance as per Bipartite Settlement . The matter was taken up by union and representation was made by union to the bank. Still the bank did not budge. There is no justification in denying allowance to a post- graduate when the same is given to a graduate. In the circumstances the Industrial dispute was raised.

who has acquired post - graduate degree without getting a graduate degree , is eligible for additional increments or not. Ext.Wl is Degree Certificate of M.A. History . This was issued from University of Mysore in May 1992. The workmanhad registered under Open University Scheme of MysoreUniversity and passed M.A. examination . By Ext. W2 application he requested for the eligible additional increments . Ext. W 4 is another application of the workman for additional increments dated 19-5-1995 . Meanwhile the union also had made a representation on behalf of the workman to the bank . Ext . W3 is copy of union's representation . Again the workman applied for additional increments on 14-6-1996 by Ext . W5 . One more representation was made by the workman on 21-3-1998 by Ext . W6 . The Branch Manager by Ext. M 1 forwarded the application of the workman dated 19-5-1995 to the Zonal Manager . The provisional certificate and degree certificate were also forwarded along with Ext. Ml to the Zonal Manager . The Sr. Manager wrote to the Personnel Department on 23-11-1998 informing that the workman had passedM.A. examination in History as well as PGDPM& IR and the same were incorporated in the records of the bank and the personnel department was requested to inform the workman about it . By Ext . M6 letter the Branch Manager of Vadakarapathy forwarded attested copy of mark sheet of M.A. examination and PGDPM & IR to the Asstt. General Manager requesting to mark the qualification in the service records of the bank and intimate the same to the workman .

3. According to the management, as per Bipartite Settlement only a graduate is eligible to get graduation allowance . Without the basic qualification of graduation a person who acquires post graduate degree directly is not eligible to get the aforementioned benefit. The matter was got clarified from Indian Banks Association . The view of the bank is confirmed by IBA. Hence the request of the workman could not be granted. There is no illegality in refusing the allowance . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is :

"Whether an employee acquiring post - graduate degree without obtaining graduate degrec is eligible for graduation allowance or increments as per Bipartite Settlement ? "

The evidence consists of the documentary evidence ofExts . WIto W8 on the side of union and Exts.M 1 to M6 on the side of management.

5. The Point:

6. The doubt as to whether an employee who acquires post-graduate degree without obtaining graduate degree is eligible to get additional increments , is cleared by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in KrishnappaM v. S.B.I. 2003 - III -LLJ 1137. In that case the petitioner in the writ petition was a Sr. Assistant in State Bank of India . During his service he acquired a Masters ' Degree in Arts , without acquiring a Batchelor's degree , in March 1990under the Open University Scheme ofMysore University. He requested the bank to grant him two graduate increments as per 5th Bipartite Settlement, but was rejected by the bank on the ground that he had not acquired Batchelor's degree as required in the bipartite settlement . This was challenged before the High Court of Karnataka. It was held by the High Court , referring to a judgement of Bombay High Court in Menino Furtado v . State Bank of India 1999 (2 ) Scrv . LJ 148 ( Bom .) , that Masters degree at any rate is higher than graduation . When a person holding lower degree of graduation is entitled to advance increments then obviously a person holding post -graduate degree would also be eligible for the same (at pg.1142 , Para 9&10) . The case on hand on facts is same on all the fours . Hence the workman is also entitled to get the additional increments as mentioned in the bipartite settlement referred above .

It is not disputed that the workman had joined the service ofmanagement bank on 18-1-1984. At that time he had passed only 10+2 examination . As per 5th Bipartite Settlement, Clause 10 , an employee who acquires graduate degree after joining service , is eligible to get graduation allowance (pg.365 of ' Bipartite Settlements' of M/ s H. P. J. Kapoor, 12th edition) . Subsequently the allowance was changed in additional increments as per Bipartite Settlement (pg.435 of the book referred supra) . There is no dispute regarding these aspects . The question is , whether a person

7. It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that the certificate is not genuine and the mark list is not produced by the workman . But there is no such contention anywhere in the written statement of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1551

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

the Sr. Manager, Zonal Office, Indian Bank to the Branch Manager , Indian Bank, Vadakarapathy.

M4- Photostat copy of letter dated 12-1-1995 issuedby theBranch Manager Indian Bank Puthunagaramto the Zonal Office, IndianBank.

M5- Photostat copy of letter dated 2-2-1995 issued by the Zonal Manager , Indian Bank to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Pudunagaram.

managernent. Besides, Ext. W7 written comments submitted to Asstt . Labour Commissioner when the dispute was raised by the workman also does not spell out anything about the genuineness of the M.A. certificate . It is a new contention raised at the time of argument. Besides, Ext.M6 letter of the Branch Manager addressed to AGM shows that the mark list of M.A. and PGDPM& IR were received by the bank and they were forwarded to AGM . Therefore the contention of the learned counsel is nobody's case and it is a careless submission .

M6- Photostat copy of letter dated 20-11-98 issued by BranchManager, Indian Bank, Vadakarapathy to the AGM, Indian Bank, H.O. , Madras .

8. For the reasons stated above I find that the workman is entitled to get the additional increments for having acquired Masters ' degree while in service .

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

9. In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management in denying graduation allowance to the workman is illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled to graduation allowance (additional increments) . No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the official Gazette.

का.आ. 788. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब व सिन्ध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 147/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 15th day of February, 2007 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

[सं. एल-12012/20/99 आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी APPENDIX

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007 Witness for the Union:

Nil.

Nil

Witness for the Management:

Exhibits for the Union:

W1- Photostat copy of the degree certificate dated 7-3-1993.

W2- Photostat copy of application of workman dated 11-12-1992 for graduation increments .

S.O. 788. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (reference No. 147/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No- 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemmerit on 20-2-2007 .

W3- Copy of letter of Indian Bank Employees' Union dated 7-1-1993 to the AGM , Indian Bank.

[No.L- 12012/20/99 - IR (B - II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer W4- Copy of letter of workman dated 19-5-1995 to the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank .

ANNEXURE

W5- Copy of letter dated 14-6-1996 sent by workman to the Chairman , Indian Bank Association.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURTNO. 1, CHANDIGARH W6- Photostat copy of letter dated 21-3-1998 sent by workman to the General Manager (Personnel Deptt .), IndianBank.

Case No. I.D. No. 147/99

W7- Written comments submitted by the Indian Bank before ALC ( C) , Kochi

Sh. Min Bahadur S/o Gopal Bahadur , C/ o Sh. Bhag Singh, House No. 2009, Sector, 45 -A, Budel ( U.T. ) Chandigarh.:

W8- Failure of conciliation report ofALC (C).

Applicant Exhibits for the Union :

Versus

The Chief Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Sector 17 -B , Chandigarh .

M1- Photostat copy of letter dated 19-5-1995 issued by the Manager , Vadakarapathy Branch to the Zonal Manager , Indian Bank .

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

M2- Photostat copy of letter dated 24-5-1995 issued by the Chief Manager (Admn.) to the Branch Manager , Vadakarapathy, Indian Bank .

For the Workman :

Sh. Ajay Mahajan M3- Photostat copy of letter dated 23-11-1998 issued by

Sh . J.S. Sathi

For the Management:

1552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

AWARD

Passed on 17-1-07

CentralGovt. vide notification No. L- 12012/20/99 /IR (B-II) dated 11-6-1999 has referred the following disputeto thisTribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Chief Manager , Punjab andSindBank, Sector 17- B , Zonal Office, Chandigarh and the Branch Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Currency Chest , Sector - 17 - B , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh . Min Bahadur S/o . Sh.GopalBahadur w.e.f. 17-6-98 (A.N. ) is just and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" 2. In the claim statement it is submitted by the workman that he was appointed as a peon by the management and he worked from 27-1-1995 to 24-1-1996 and he again was appointed as peon in Sector 17 branch w.e.f. 27-6-97 and he continued to work and his services wereterminated on 17-6-98 without any notice, charge sheet, enquiry show cause notice or compensation . The work and conduct of the workman was outstanding . It is submittedby the workman that he was getting pay scale of Rs.1600-2400. It is submitted that workman has completed more than300 days continuously in service preceding the year of termination. The services of the workman were terminated without following the procedure and against the provisions of the I.D. Act 1947 whereas juniors have been retained by the management and allowed to continue Shri Rakesh Peon who earlier worked up to June 1999 in Sector 11 , Chandigarh has been shifted to Sector 21 , Branch, Chandigarh, Shri Umesh Ram Parshad, Pilot was allowed to continue . The workman has not been given chance of re -employmentby the management .

3. The Management in the written statement submitted that the workman was engaged as temporary peonwithout following any procedure for making regular recruitment and no formal appointment letter was issued to him and as such he had no right for regularization or continuation in service . The workman worked in different branches and as far as temporary peons are concerned, change ofbranch would meant discontinuation of services and fresh appointment without creating any right on the basis of the service and on head office does not have the effect of clubbing of services rendered in different branches especially for temporary/casual employees .

4. The workman was engaged as temporary peon without any right for continuation in service or right for regularization of his services . The workman was not re- engagedwhen there was no need of his services .No penal action was taken against the workman and as such it was not necessary to give any notice , charge sheet, show cause notice or to hold inquiry . It is further submitted that temporary peons engaged in different branches have no inter-se seniority and as such the plea of the workman that juniors to him were retained in service are mis -conceived .

5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit in support ofhis claim statement reiterating the claim made in the

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] claim statement. The management in evidence filed the affidavitto Shri N.S. Sidhu Manager Punjab and Sind Bank Currency Chest Sector 17- B , Chandigarh .

6. Both parties led documentary and oral evidence . Final arguments heard as advanced by the Ld. Counsels of both the parties . Both parties also filed written arguments insupport of their case.

7. Learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman case is crystal clear . Workman proved his case by his evidence as WW1 and by cross - examination of the MW1 anddocuments Ex./W2 and W3 of the bank which are stated to be issued by the bank by MW1 N.S. Sidhu . He submitted that workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination w.e.f. 17-6-1998 . He was disengaged without any compensation , notice or notice pay or without holding any enquiry despite his moral character was good as admitted by the bank in Ex . W3 which is a character certificate issued to the workman on 22-6-1998 after 5-6 days of his disengagement wherein it is stated that workman was honest and devoted worker and he worked more than 240 days as period given inthis documents . His salary was also being deposited in SB account . He submitted that although management appointedjuniors but even if it is admitted that they are no inter see seniority and they were appointed by different managers in different branches for casual work, the only fact remains that workman worked more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of his termination and it is not challenged by the bank . Hence workman proved this reference in his favor . He also remained unemployed and was hardly earning Rs . 400-500 per month just to meet hisday to day expenses .

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the management bank Shri J.S. Sathi submitted that workman was engaged as temporary peon on part time basis to meet the exigencies of work . No procedure required to be followed for making regular appointments was followed in as much as no public notice/ advertisement was given, no interview / selection process was carried out . No appointment letter or termination letter was ever issued . Whenhis services were not required , he was not engaged as such there was no positive act of termination on the part of the management . The workman was engaged to meet the exigencies and he was not appointed against regular sanctioned post . Min Bahadur is not entitled for protection under the I.D. Act 1947 when the work done Min Bahadur at the other branches can not be clubbed together to determine his length of total service of 240 days in a calendar year.

9. He also submitted in written arguments that at present bank has no post where the workman can be adjusted and as such it was not possible for the bank to reinstate the workman in service. Management also referred to 1997 LIC 2075 Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that termination of service of employee appointed on the basis [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

1553

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

of need or work can not be construed to be retrenchment and it is no violation of Section 25F . Management also referredtoAIR 1994 SC 1638 Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad UP Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that completion of 240 days of work does not under the I.D.Act import right to regularization .

completedmorethan 240 days in a calender year preceding tohisdate of termination and that no notice of termination or pay in lieti of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid tohim and it is a clear violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 and it is the only plea pressed by the workman in his case . I have also found that in view of the above and relying on the law referred by the workman, I am ofthe considered view that following the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench, workman has no case in such situation entitling for regularization and prayer can not be acceded toand 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 is 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 controverted or disputed in any manner by the leamed advocates of the workman .

12. Now it is the settled law as held by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt referred by Bank and in several judgments that reinstatement in certain situation is not necessary and inthe present case in view of the submission and evidence of the management as there is no vacancy existed at present, even if this 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 workman has put in more than240 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 his service as is claimed by workman in the claim statement at present and it cannot be allowed.

10. While summing up his arguments management's advocate submitted that admittedly it is case where workmanwas not appointed in compliance of the statutory rules and proves established by these rules . But he was engaged for intermittently for casual work by a manager of one branch . He submitted that even manager and every branch can so engaged casual temporary worker without following due process and workman so appointed does not enjoy any right . Further more different workman appointed by different managers and not according to statutory rules but to meet the exigency like situation and bank has no inter se seniority and they have been disengaged when the work is over. He also referredto the latest judgement of the Hobn'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary State of Karnataka and Orts . Vs. Uma Devi and Ors wherein it is held that appointments without following the due processocess of law on sanctioned post is to bedone by the complying due process and statutory rules . Learned counsel for the management also pointed out in oral arguments that workman in his claim statement in para 1 has submitted that workman was appointed as peon in respondent bank . Respondent No. 1 is Punjab and Sind Bank, Head Office at New Delhi whereas he was appointed by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Chandigarh branch . He also submitted that bank has honestly admittedW3 a certificate issuedby the bank after the disengagement ofthe workman jusi to facilitate him to have better service elsewhere just tomaintain cordial relations . As per workman himself his services were disengaged on 17-6-98 whereas W3 character certificate was issued on 22-6-1998 after five days . In view of the above submission he submitted that workman fails toprove his case . On the other hand bank has proved that termination ofthe Min Bahadur on 17-6-98 was just and legal and workman is not entitled for any relief.

13.The contention of the management that manager who appointed the workman 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 engaged 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, Section 25F of the I.D. Act comes to his rescue . Yes, his disengagement w.e.f. 17-6-98 (AN) is bad, void abinitio at all . Action of Chief Manager, Pb and Sind Bank, Chandigarh, Sector - 17- B , Zonal Office is not just and is illegal . This part of reference is decided in favour of workman.

11. 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 workman are that he has 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 workman and itis 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 judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka and in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi's case and a judgement 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 workman has

14. Now the next part of the reference sent for adjudication to what relief the workman is entitled it is incumbent upon the branch manager to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. In my view as submitted by the learned counsel for the management that there is no vacancy, there can not be any reistatement or regularization or payment of back wages , but it is a fit case for grant of compensation for alleged violation of Section 25F . This part of the reference is decided in favour ofworkman .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1554

[PART II--SEC . 3 (ii) ] EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

National Transport Company

The Partner

15. I also refer and reply 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 compensation in the absence of post in present like case in view of above decision and law referred by me and as there is no vacancy as proved by the management , though the workman was appointed without following the due legal statutory process of employment , not entitled for the relief of reistatement and back wages can be entitled for compensation. I am of the considered view that in this peculiar situation when reinstatement is not possible , workman should be compensated monetarily. In view of the above, I order that workman should be paid monetary compensation of Rs . 40000 in lieu of reinstatement and backwages within three months from the date ofpublication of the award when it become enforceable failing which workman shall be entitled for interest @ 15% per annum fromthe date ofpublication of the award . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

M/ s . National Transport Company 4thFloor, Mustafa Building SirP. M. Road, Fort Mumbai -400001 .

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore C/ o Mumbai Workers Association 1/25/26, Ashid Bhai Building . 65/73- A, K. K. Marg , Jacob Circle, Mumbai -400011

APPEARANCES

FortheEmployer

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh

17-01-2007

: Mr. A. R. Mulani Representative

Forthe Workman

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 789.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल ट्रान्सपोर्ट कंपनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/72/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-39011/8/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007 S.O. 789. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21721 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Transport Company and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2007 .

[No. L-39011/8/2003 - IR (B - II) ) RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, AT MUMBAI

PRESENT

A. A. LAD ,

PresidingOfficer

REFERENCENo. CGIT- 2/72 OF 2003

: Mr. Aboo Talib Representative

Date of passing of Award: 12th January, 2007.

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 39011 /8 /2003 /IR (B - II) dated 21-10-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of National Transport Company , Mumbai by orally terminating the services of Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore w.e.f. 11-9-2001 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman, Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore is entitled to ? " 2. To support the subject - matter second party filed Claim Statement at Ex- 6 stating that First party employed 60 employees including workman involved in the reference in its various godowns for loading and unloading purpose . They are working there since 1964. However workman involved in the reference was terminated illegally w.e.f. 11-09-2001 without following due process of law . So he prayed to reinstate with backwages .

3. This was objected by First party by filing reply Ex- 12 stating that, decision taken by it is just and proper and does not require any interference .

4. In view of above pleadings issues were framed at Ex-14 and matter was fixed for recording evidence . However by Ex - 16 both parties arrived at certain settlement and agreed to it . Relying on Ex - 16, the reference is disposed of hence the order :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1555

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17. 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

ORDER

MAYITPLEASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL :

In view of Ex- 16, reference is disposed of with no order as to cost.

Dated: 12-01-2007

A. A. LAD , PresidingOfficer

Ex. No.16

The parties to the above dispute have discussed the matter in dispute between them and as a result of said discussions , an amicable settlement has been reached between the parties on the following terms and conditions to put an end to the dispute.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE COURTOF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT MUMBAI

1.The First Company has agreed to pay the amount of Rs . 22,500 to the Second Party workman without prejudice to the contention of the First Party Company that the Second Party workman was not its employee.

Reference CGIT No. 2/72 of2003 BETWEEN M/s. National Transport Company AND Their Workman

2.The Second Party workman Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore agrees to accept an amount of Rs . 22,500 (Rupees TwentyTwo Thousand Five Hundred only) as and by way of ex-gratia payment in consideration of the workman giving up his demand in the reference order .

In the matter of reinstatement of Shri Dhondiba Somaji

Ghore

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL :

The parties to the above reference submit before this Hon'ble Tribunal as under :

3. The Second Party workman further agrees that afterreceiving the aforesaid amount of Rs . 22,500 from the First Party Company, he has given up his demand for reinstatement in service and that upon getting the said amount from the First Party Company, will have no dispute of whatsoever nature with the Company in respect of all his claims against the First Party Company.

The parties have signed a settlement between themselves outside the Court on 14-1-2006 and the terms of the settlement agreed to by the parties have been recorded and signed by the parties on 14-1-2006 . The copies of the terms and conditions of settlement signed by both the parties are annexed to this Application.

4.The SecondParty workman hereby agrees that the aforesaid amount of Rs . 22,500 has been received by him from the First Party Company in full and final settlement of all his claims against the First Party Company and that he has givenup his demand for reinstatement in the service of the First PartyCompany.

The amount due and payable to the workman concerned has already paid to the concerned workman by cheque and the receipt passed by the concerned workman in the above reference is annexed with the terms of settlement .

5. The Second Party workman will also pass a receipt to the above effect to the First Party Company for having received the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement for his claims against the Company , including his demand for reinstatement in the Company's services covered by the reference Order dtd. 21-10-2003 .

The parties therefore , pray that the above reference may please be disposed of in terms of the enclosed settlement.

For National Transport Company

A. R. MULANI , Advocate

Both the parties will approach the Hon'ble Tribunal with this settlement, requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to give an Award accordingly and dispose the Reference in terms of this settlement .

Forworkman, Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore

Mumbai:

Mumbai :

ABOOTALIB,

Dated: 14-01-2006

Sd/- Dated: 12-01-2007

Union Representative

Illegible

ForFirst Party Company BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI

Reference CGIT No. 2/72 of2003

Sd/- Illegible

BETWEEN

Second Party workman M/s . National Transport Company

L. H. T. I. ofShri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore AND

RECEIPT

Their Workman

Inthe matter of reinstatement of Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore with fullback wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 11-9-2001.

I , Shri Dhondiba Somaji Ghore, the workman covered by Reference CGIT No. 2/72 of 2003 presently pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, hereby say that I have received the amount of [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1556

The Partner

M/s. National Transport Company 4thfloor , Mustafa Building SirP. M. Road, Fort Mumbai -400001 .

AND

Their Workmen

Rs. 22,500 (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) from M/ s . National Transport Company in full and finalsettlement of all my claims/dues against the Company. Ihave also agreedto give up my demand for reinstatement in service with the Company. I have filed the settlement before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai , requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to dispose the reference regarding my demand in terms of the settlement filedbefore the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal .

Shri Pandurand Todkar C/o Mumbai Workers Association 1/25/26 , Ashid Bhai Building , 65/73-A, K. K. Marg, jacob Circle, Mumbai -400011

APPEARANCES

For the Employer : Mr. A. R. Mulani , Representative

I have passed this receipt for having received the aforesaid amount and I say that I will have no claim of whatsoever nature against the Company hereafter upon receiving the amount of Rs . 22,500 from the Company. Cheque No. 753098 dtd. 14-1-2006 Punjab National Bank and Cash 2500 only (Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred).

Forthe Workman

Dated:14-1-2006

(Dhondiba Somaji Ghore)

: Mr. Aboo Talib , Representative

नई दिल्ली, 20 फरवरी , 2007

Date ofpassing of Award : 12th January, 2007 AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L- 39011/7/2003 - IR (B - II) dated 21-10-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 790.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल ट्रान्सपोर्ट कंपनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबंद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/71/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-39011 /7/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th February, 2007

"Whether the action of the management ofNational Transport Company , Mumbai by orally terminating the services of Shri Pandurang Todkar w.e.f. 10-9-2001 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman, Shri Pandurang Todkar is entitled to ???

S.O. 790.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/71 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Transport Company and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-2-2007.

2. To support the subject matter second party filed Claim Statement at Ex - 8 stating that First party employed 60 employees including workman involved in the reference in its various godowns for loading and unloading purpose . They are working there since 1964. However workman involved in the reference was terminated illegally w.e.f. 10-09-2001 without following due process of law. So he prayed to reinstate with backwages .

[No. L- 39011 /7/2003 - IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

3. This was objected by First party by filing reply Ex- 12 stating that, decision taken by it is just and proper and does not require any interference .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT MUMBAI

4. In view of above pleadings issues were framed at Ex-14 and matter was fixed for recoding evidence . However by Ex- 15 both parties arrived at certain settlement and agreed to it. Relying on Ex - 15, the reference is disposed of hence the order :

PRESENT

ORDER

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2/71 of 2003

In view of Ex - 15, reference is disposed of with no order as to cost.

Dated: 12-01-2007

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Employers in Relation to the Management of National Transport Company [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1557

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

EX.NO.15

betweenthe parties on the following terms and conditions toput an end to the dispute.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1.TheFirst Company has agreed to pay the amount of Rs . 22,500 to the Second Party workman without prejudice to the contention of the First Party Company that the Second Party workman was not its employee .

Reference CGIT No. 2/71 of 2003 BETWEEN M/s. National Transport Company AND Their Workman

Inthe matter of reinstatement of Shri Pandurang B. Todkar

2. The Second Party workman Shri Pandurang B. Todkar agrees to accept an amount of Rs . 22,500 (Rupees Twenty Two thousand five hundred only) as and by way ofex-gratiapayment in consideration of the workman giving uphis demand in the Reference order.

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL :

The parties to the above Reference submit before this Hon'ble Tribunal as under :

43. The Second Party workman further agrees that after receiving the aforesaid amount ofRs . 22,500 from the First Party Company, he has given up his demand for reinstatement in service and that upon getting the said amount from the First Party Company, he will have no dispute of whatsoever nature with the Company in respect ofall his claims against the First Party Company.

The parties have signed a settlement between themselves outside the Court on 14-1-2006 and the terms of the settlement agreed to by the parties have been recorded and signed by the parties on 14-1-2006. The copies ofthe terms and conditions of settlement signed by both the parties are annexed to this Application.

4.The Second Party workman hereby agrees that the aforesaid amout of Rs . 22,500 has been received by him fromthe First Party Company in full and final settlement of all his claims against the First Party Company and that he has given up his demand for reinstatement in the service of theFirst Party Company .

The amount due and payable to the workman concerned has already paid to the concerned workman by cheque and the receipt passed by the concerned workman in the above Reference is annexed with the terms of settlement .

Theparties therefore, pray that the above Reference may please be disposed of in terms of the enclosed settlement.

5. The Second Party workman will also pass a receipt tothe above effect to the First Party Company for having received the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement for his claims against the Company , including his demand for reinstatement in the Company's services covered by the Reference Order dt. 21-10-2003 .

ForNational Transport Company

A. R. MULANI , Advocate

Forworkman, Shri Pandurang B. Todkar

Mumbai :

Both the parties will approach the Hon'ble Tribunal with this settlement, requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to give an Award accordingly and dispose the Reference in terms of this settlement .

Dated: 12-01-2007

ABOOT TALIB Union Representative Mumbai:

Dated; 14-01-2006

Sd/- BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI

ForFirst Party Company

Second Partyworkman

L. H. T. I. of shri Pandurang B. Todkar

RECEIPT

Reference CGIT No. 2/71 of2003 BETWEEN M/s. National Transport Company AND Their Workman

Inthe matter of reinstatement of Shri PandurangB. Todkar with full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f. 10-9-2001 .

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL :

I, Shri Pandurang B. Todkar, the workman covered by Reference CGIT No. 2/71 of 2003 presently pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai , hereby say that I have received the amount ofRs . 22,500 (Rupees Twenty two thousand five hundred only) from M/s National Transport Company in full and final settlement of all my claims/dues against the Company . Ihave also agreed to give up my demand for reinstatement in service with the Company . I have filed the settlement before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai , requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to dispose the The parties to the above dispute have discussed the matter in dispute between them and as a result of said discussions , an amicable settlement has been reached 71991/07-7 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1558

APPEARANCES

Reference regarding my demand in terms of the settlement filedbefore the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal .

FortheEmployer : Mr. A. R. Mulani , Representative

Forthe Workman : Mr. Aboo Talib ,

Representative

Date of passing of Award : 12th January, 2007.

AWARD

I have passed this receipt for having received the aforesaid amount and I say that I will have no claim of whatsoever nature against the Company hereafter upon receiving the amount of Rs . 22,500 from the Company. Cheque No. 753097 dt. 14-1-2006 Punjab National Bank and Cash Rs . 2500 only (Rupees Two thousand and Five hundred).

Date: 14-1-2006

(PANDURANG B. TODKAR)

नईदिल्ली, 20 फरवरी, 2007

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-39011 / 6/2003 /IR (B - II) dated 21-10-2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 791.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल ट्रान्सपोर्ट कंपनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/73/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-39011/6/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of National Transport Company , Mumbai by orally terminating the services of Shri Samaji Rambhau w.e.f. 24-5-2000 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman, Shri Somaji Rambhau Ghore is entitled to ?" NewDelhi , the 20th February, 2007

S.O. 791. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/73 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Transport Company and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-2-2007.

2. To support the subject mater second party filed Claim Statement at Ex - 6 stating that First party employed 60 employees including workman involved in the reference in its various godowns for loading and unloading purpose . They are working there since 1965. However workman involved in the reference was terminated illegally w.e.f. 24-5-2000 without following due process of law . So he prayed to reinstate with backwages .

[No. L-39011/6/2003 - IR (B -II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. This was objected by First party by filing reply Ex-12 stating that, decision taken by it is just and proper and does not require any interference .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT MUMBAI

PRESENT

A. A.LAD Presiding Officer

4. in view of above pleadings issues were framed at Ex-14 and matter was fixed for recoding evidence. However by Ex- 16 both pareties arrived at certain settlement and agreed to it . Relying on Ex-- 16, the reference is disposed of hence the order :

REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/73 OF 2003

ORDER

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

In view of Ex - 16, reference is disposed of with no order as to cost .

NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMPANY

The Partner

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Dated: 12-01-2007

ΕΧ. ΝΟ . 16

M/s . National Transport Company 4thfloor, Mustafa Building SirP. M. Road, Fort

Mumbai-400001.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT MUMBAI

Reference CGIT No. 2/73 of 2003 AND THEIR WORKMEN

BETWEEN

M/s . National Transport Company AND

Their Workman

Shri Somaji Rambhau Ghore C/o Mumbai Workers Association 1/25/26, Ashid Bhai Building , 65/73-A, K. K. Marg , jacob Circle , Mumbai -400011 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1559

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

Inthematter of reinstatement of Shri Somaji Rambhau Ghore.

Twenty Two thousand five hundred only) as and by way ofex-gratiapayment in consideration of the workman giving up his demand in the Reference order.

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL :

The parties to the above Reference submit before this Hon'ble Tribunal as under:

3. The Second Party workman further agrees that after receiving the aforesaid amount ofRs . 22,500 from the First Party Company, he has given up his demand for reinstatement in service and that upon getting the said amount from the First Party Company, he will have no dispute ofwhatsoever nature with the Company in respect ofallhis claims against the First Party Company.

The parties have signed a settlement between themselves outside the Court on 14-1-2006 and the terms of the settlement agreed to by the parties have been recorded and signed by the parties on 14-1-2006. The copies of the terms and conditions of settlement signed by both the parties are annexed to this Application.

4.The SecondParty workman hereby agrees that the aforesaid amount of Rs . 22,500 has been received by him from the First PartyCompany in full and final settlement of all his claims against the First Party Company and that he hasgivenuphis demand for reinstatement in the service of theFirstPartyCompany .

The amount due and payable to the workman concerned has already paid to the concerned workmanby cheque and the receipt passed by the concerned workman in the above Reference is annexed with the terms of settlement.

The parties therefore, pray that the above Reference may please be disposed of in terms of the enclosed settlement.

ForNational Transport Company

5.The Second Party workman will also pass a receipt tothe above effect to the First Party Company for having received the aforesaid amount in full and final settlement forhis claims against the Company, including his demand for reinstatement in the Company's services covered by theReferenceOrder dt. 21-10-2003.

A. R. MULANI, Advocate

Forworkman, Shri Somaji RambhauGhore

Mumbai:

ABOOTALIB,

Both the parties will approach the Hon'ble Tribunal with this settlement, requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to give anAward accordingly and dispose the Reference in terms of this settlement.

Dated: 12-1-2007

UnionRepresentative

Mumbai:

Dated: 14-1-2006

ForFirst Party Company BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI :

SecondParty workman

L. H. T. I. of Shri Somaji Rambhau Ghore

RECEIPT

Reference CGIT No. 2/73 of2003 BETWEEN M/s. National Transport Company AND نہ Their Workman

Inthematter of reinstatement of Shri Somaji Rambhan Ghorewith full back wages and continuity of service w.c.f. 24-5-2000.

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL:

I, Shri Somaji Rambhau Ghore , the workman covered by Reference CGIT No. 2/73 of 2003 presently pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, hereby say that I have received the amount of Rs. 22,500 (Rupees Twenty two thousand'five hundred only)fromM/ s. National Transport Company in full and final settlementof all my claims/dues against the Company. Ihave also agreed to give up my demand for reinstatement in service with the Company. I have filed the settlement before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai, requesting the Hon'ble Tribunal to dispose the Reference regarding my demand in terms ofthe settlement filed before the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal .

TERMS AND CONDITIONS .

I have passed this receipt for having received the aforesaid amount any I say that I will have no claim of whatsoever nature against the Company hereafter upon receiving the amount of Rs . 22,500 from the Company. Cheque No. 753099 dt. 14-1-2006 Punjab National Bank and Cash Rs . 2500 only (Rupees Two thousand and Five hundred)

Date: 14-1-2006 (LH.T.L. of SOMAIRAMBHAUGHORE) 2.The Second Party workman Shri Somaji Rambhau Ghore agrees to accept an amount of Rs . 22,500 (Rupees [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] 1560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

"Whether the action of the management ofThe New India Assurance Company, imposing major penalty ofreduction ofbasic salary to the starting basic salary in the scale of Assistant on Sh. K. Rohit Kumar , Assistant, is legal and justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ? "

का. आ. 792.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. आई. ए. सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. सं. 46/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को21-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -17012/ 15 /2006- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

2.Petitioner present and Respondent is represented by Dy . Manager , Mr. Sivaji today Petitioner reported that he is withdrawing his claim and does not want to proceed as the matter was settled out of the Tribunal and filed memo to that effect giving copy to the Respondent . Heard both sides.

NewDelhi , the 21st February, 2007

3. In view of the circumstances , a ' Nil ' Award is passed since the claimant has not pressed and withdrawn his claim, Transmit .

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 7th day of February, 2007.

T. RAMACHANDRAREDDY, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of Evidence

S.O. 792 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. I.D. No. 46/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NIAC Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on21-2-2007 .

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner Respondent

[No. L- 17012/15/2006- IR (M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

NIL

ANNEXURE

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

PRESENT

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

SHRIT. RAMACHANDRA REDDY Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of February , 2007 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 46/2006

Between:

Shri K. Rohit Kumar , Plot No. 217 , FCI Colony ,

....Petitioner

Vanastalipuram , Hyderabad

का.आ. 793.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत गोल्ड माईन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.आर. सं. 21/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

AND

The Regional Manager,

[सं. एल-43011/1/2003- आई आर ( एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February , 2007

....Respondent

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. , 5th floor, Surya Towers , Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad- 530003

Appearances :

: NIL

For the Petitioner

For the Respondent : NIL

AWARD

S.O. 793.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (C.R. No. 21/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court , Bangalore , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBharat Gold Mines Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-2-2007.

[No. L-43011 /1 /2003- IR (M) ] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L -17012/ 15/2006- IR(M) dated 7-8-2006 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of The New India Assurance Company Ltd. , and their workman . The reference is , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR BANGALORE

Dated, 1st February2007 PRESENT:

Shri A.R, Siddiqui , Presiding Officer C.R. No. 21/2003

IParty

The President,

BGM General Workers Union CITU Office, Mairukuppam, KolarGoldField,

K.G.F-563119 Karmataka State

Party

The managingDirector,

BharatGold Mines Ltd, OorgaumPost, KolarGold Field-563120

Karnataka State

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order . No. L -43011/ 1 /2003 (IR (M) dated 2nd May2003 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bharat GoldMines Ltd. , in imposing punishment of reduction of two increments in the scale of pay of Shri A. Anbalagan, Telephone Operator is justified? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

2. BGM General Workers Union represented by its President, CITU Office, Marikuppam, KGF espousing the cause of the first party workman filed its Claim statement challenging the enquiry proceedings conducted against the first party (herein after called workman) on the ground that they suffered from violation of principles of natural justice and that the findings of the enquiry officer holding the workman guilty of the charges suffered from perversity and that the impugned punishment order reducing his pay by two increments was unjust and illegal .

2. The management , however , by its Counter Statement contended that enquiry conducted against the workman was in accordance with the principles of natural justice having afforded reasonable opportunity to him to defendhimself and that he infact participated in the enquiry proceedings and cross examined the management witness and thereafter , gave his defence statement . The management further contended that the findings of the enquiry were very much based upon sufficient and legal evidence produced during the course of enquiry and that

1561

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

the order reducing the pay of the workman by two increments was legal and justified.

3. Keeping in view the respective contentions ofthe parties with regard to the validity or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings ,thistribunal on 9-11-2004 framed the following Preliminary Issue:

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

4. During the course of trial of the said issue, the management examined one Mr. Issaac , working as Assistant Personnel Manager and in his deposition got marked five documents at Ex. M1 to M5 namely , the charge sheet, reply to the charge sheet, notice cum appointment order of enquiry officer, proceedings of enquiry and findings of the enquiry. The first party filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination chief without getting marked any document.

5. After hearing the learned counsels of the respective parties , theis tribunal by order dated 12-7-2006, recorded a finding on the above said issue to the effect that enquiry conducted against the first party by the Second Party is fair and proper. Thereupon the matter came to be posted, for arguments on merits .

6. Learned, Counsel for the First party in his arguments submitted that findings of the enquiry officer are notbasedupon sufficient and legal evidence inasmuch as the statement of the first party workman made before the enquiry officer has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted there being no cross examination to him on behalf of the management . He contended that a competent and relevant witness by name Shri Janakiraman to speak to the charges of misconduct against the workman has not been examined. Learned counsel then submitted a copyof the award passed by this tribunal in CR No. 13/93 to suggest that under the similar facts and circumstances of the case this tribunal set aside the punishment order passed by the management against one of its employees and therefore, the impugned punishment order also is liable to be set aside for the reasoning given in the above said award . Lastly , he submitted that even otherwise , the punishment order reducing the pay of the first party by two increments once for all has caused great financial hardship, he being a poor employee having unblemished record of service with the management for a petty longtime.

7. Whereas , the learned counsel for the management supported the findings of the enquiry officer and contended that the perusal of the enquiry findings would make it abundantly clear that they are supported by valid and cogent reasonings in turn supported by sufficient and legal evidence. He submitted that the workman has taken conflicting stand one in the claim statement and the other before the enquiry officer by giving his defence statement . In his Claim Statement he comes to say that he occupied theQuarter No. 046(S) under the allotment order issuedby the Dy. General Manager (P) of the management and [PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii)] 1562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA26, 1928

whereas , during the course of enquiry while giving suggestions to the management witness as well as by giving his ownstatement he put forth altogether a different defence highlighting certain family problems he faced in not occupying Quarter which was allotted to him previously and then in occupying the present quarter , there being no order ofallotment in his favour for the said quarter.

8. After having gone through the records , I find substance in the arguments advanced for the management . Keeping in view the findings already recorded by this tribunal to the effect that the Domestic Enquiry conducted against the first party by the Second Party is fair and proper, the only important question in the first instance to be consideredwould be whether the findings of the enquiry officer suffered from any perversity and then the next question to be gone into would be about the quantum of the punishment .

9. The first party at Para 10 of his claim statement contendedthat findings of the enquiry officer are totally perverse not based on evidence and that the enquiry officer has not given any valid reason to disbelieve his defence statement and that the conclusion arrived at by him is without any sound reasonings . Whereas , as noted above , the management contended that findings are supported by cogent and valid reasonings in turn supported by sufficient and legal evidence .

came with the version that he occupied the above said House No. 046 (S) under a critical situation of his mind as he faced mental agony on account of death of his father and other family problems . He also came out with a case that he could not occupy Qr . No. 655 allotted to him and that he infact had given letter for white washing , renovation and repairs of the said quarter and in the meanwhile it was allotted to one Mr. Yohan and he was forced to occupy the present hosue. Therefore, from the very statement of the first party made before the enquiry officer and the defence taken by himby way of cross examination to the management witness, it becomes crystal clear that he did not occupy Qr . No. 655 which was originally allotted in his name and that he occupied No. 046 (S) under confused state of mind facing men geny and family problems etc. This statement ofthe arsity during the course of enquiry as argued for the manent was quite contrary to the stand he took in his latement contending that he infact was allotted Hos. 046 (S ) by the Dy. General Manager ( P ) of the 13 ment which fact was not established by him by of production of any such allotment order during the course of enquiry . On the other hand he had given up the said defence during the course of enquiry. In the result, from the evidence brought on record and the reasonings given by the enquiry officer, it becomes clear like crystal that the first party having failed to occupy House No. 655 allotted to him well within time had unauthorisedly occupied house No. 46(S) without any allotment order and continued to occupy the said house despite the letter issued by the management authorities to vacate the same without any further day . In the result, I am of the opinion that charge of misconduct leveled against the first party has been established by the management verymuch by sufficient and legal evidence and in the light of the very defence taken by the first party. The award passedby this tribunal in CR No. 13/93 relied upon by the learned counsel for the first party on the ground that under the similar facts and circumstances similar order of punishment against one of the employees of the management has been set aside by this tribunal, in my opinion will not help the case of the Workman . The facts involved in the said case were altogether different from the facts involved in the instant case . In that case the charge sheet against the workman concerned was to the effect that she had sublet the quarter allotted to her in favour of her brother and thereby committed the misconduct . My Learned Predecessor found no evidence to suggest that the workman sublet the house in favour of her brother , and therefore , set aside the punishment order passed against the workman by the management in that case. In the instant case however , the things are quite different . Here undisputedly , the first party had occupied the above said house No. 46 (S) not being allotted in his favour and continued to occupy the said house despite the directions of the management to vacate the same . In the result, and for the foregoing reasons , I must conclude to say that charges of misconduct against the first party have been proved.

10. On going through the averments in the claim statement with regard to the facts and the allegations made in the charge sheet and after having taken into consideration the evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry and the findigns of the enquiry officer , the contention of the management that the Workman has takenconflicting stand, appears to be very much supported by the records . The first party workman in his claim statement on facts that on his request the management allotted him a house No. 655 and the allotment was notified on 28-5-1997 . He then stated that to his utter surprise, the said house was occupied by another employee of the management by name Mr. Yohan and thereafter on the dire need of a dwelling house he (the workman) was forced to occupy the house No. 046 (S) in the same locality which was vacant and for which Dy . General Manager (P) of the management had issued an allotment order . Thereupon, he occupied the said house getting deducted wages from his salary towards the rent and paying water charges and sanitation charges etc. Therefore , according to him the charge sheet filed against him that he occupied house No. 046(S) without any allotment order being issued in his favour was false and motivated. However , as could be read from the enquiry proceedings and enquiry findings , the above said defence taken by the first party was given go bye by him Not a single suggestion he made to the management witness to the effect that he had occupied the present house No. 046 (S) under the allotment order issued by the Dy . General Manager (P ) and on the other hand in his defence statement which he himself relied upon on the ground that it was not challenged by the management. He [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1563

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

Reference No. CGIT - 2/ 191 of 1999 .

Employers in Relation to the Management of M/ s . Shree Sharde Marine Services

M/s. Shree Sharde Marine Services

C/o. Western India Shipyard Ltd.

MormugaoHarbour Mormugao , Goa- 403 803. AND

THEIR WORKMAN

ThePresident,

GoaTrade andCommercial Workers Union,

Velho's Building , 2nd floor ,

Opp.Municipal Garden Panjim , Goa-403001.

11. Now, coming to the quantum of the punishment, there appears substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the first party that the order of punishment reducing the pay of the first party by two increments is somewhat excessive and harsh keeping in view the nature of the misconduct committed by the first party . Therefore , having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the first party made during the course of enquiry that he suffered from mental agony and family problems in occupying the house in question and also taking into consideration the fact that the impugned punishment orderhas been in effect for a period of about six years as on todate, it appears to me that ends of justice will be met if the impugned punishment order passed against the first party comes to an end as on the date of passing of this award . Hence the followingaward:

APPEARANCES :

AWARD

FortheEmployer : Mr. S.K. Shrivastava , Advocate

Forthe Workman

The impugned punishment order of reducing the pay ofthe first party by two increments shall remain in force till 31st January 2007 only . The management shall release the two increments withheld by it w.e.f. 1-2-2007 . No costs.

: Mr. Suhaas Naik Representative

Date of passing of Award : 24th January, 2007.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 1st February, 2007)

AWARD

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour by its Order No. L - 36011 / 3 /99 /IR ( M) dated 10-09-1999 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

का.आ. 794.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . श्री शारदे मैरीन सर्विसेज के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2 ) /191 /1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Sharde Marine Services , Goa in terminating the services of S/Shri Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan w.e.f. 13-9-98 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled for ?"

[सं. एल-36011/3 /1999- आई आर (एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2007

S.O. 794. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Goyernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/191/1999 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s. Shree Sharde Marine Services and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-2-2007 .

[No. L-36011/3/ 1999- IR (M)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL No. 2, AT MUMBAI

PRESENT A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer

2. To support the subject mater referred in the reference, second party filed Claim Statement at Ex -4 stating that, workman Shri Mohan Singh and Mr. Hanif Khan were employed with M/ s . Shree Sharde Marine Ser vices to carry out the work ofShip repairs in the ship yard of the principal employer M/ s . Western India Shipyard Ltd. Both were employed as a welder and fitter without giving appointment order. Gate pass was issued to Mohan Singh mentioning his designation as Welder/Fitter whereas gate pass issued to Hanif Khan was forcibly taken by the said contractor Ramendra Singh . According to union M/ s . Shree Sharde Marine Services is a contractor to the principal Employer M/s . Western India Shipyard Ltd. which Company engaged in repairs and said company engages services of M/s . Shree Sharde Marine . Said contractor employs more than 25 workmen on its roll who carry out the work of Ship repairs . Bothworkers were working from 20-11-1997 onwards . Said work is of perennial nature and require 8 hours duty . Both workers work efficiently and diligently with the said contractor from 20-11-1997 to 12-8-1998 continuously i.e. for 8 months and 22 days . However on 13-9-98 contractor [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) 1564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

refuses to employ them . On that, several efforts were made toget an employment but no fruits came . So the complaint was lodged before RLC ( C). As dispute was not settled, it was referred here for adjudication where prayer of the Union isthat, refusal of employment to these workmen is illegal and bad in law and was done by violating Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and without giving opportunity to the workman to hear them on decision of first party and prayed to treat them as employees of the first party and reinstate them .

are proceeded exparte treating termination of Mohan Singh & Hanif Khan not legal and justified with order of reinstatement by passing Award on 28-5-2001 . Then restoration application was filed to set aside the said order which was allowed on 7-1-2003 giving an opportunity to the first party to participate in the reference . Again by application Ex - 48 first party prayed to allow him to cross examine the witnesses on which this Tribunal passed an orderand permitted first party to cross examine the witness onpaying cost ofRs. 2000 which was awarded in restoring reference . It is matter of record that though reference was restored on cost Rs . 2000 and though opportunity was givento first party to cross examine witness permitting it deposit Rs . 2000 as per order passed in restoration application, it is pertinent to note that still first party remained absent and absent againt which lead this Tribunal to proceed on the evidenece led by the second party .

3. This is objected by the first party by filing reply at Ex . 31 stating that workmen Mohan Singh and Hanif Khanemployed by Shree Sharde Marine abandoned their services by taking their full and final dues as decided by ALC(C) Vasco on 24-6-1998 . It is further stated that, they are casual and temporary employees of first party . They were engaged on contract basis . It is denied that , they are permanent employees of first party and worked 240days toclaim permanency. Since these two.workmen abandoned the job on satisfying the settlement took place before ALC(C) Vasco , they have no right to say anything and claim with first party . So it is prayed that , their claim be rejected.

4. In view of above pleadings my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Ex -33 which are answered as below:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

7. As stated , above these two workers involved in the reference more precisely Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan worked continuously for 8 Months and 22 days with out disturbances and that fact is not disputed by the first party without leading evidence . First party has not brought on record the settlement on the strength of which these two workmen accepted the dues. In the absence of it and in the absence of evidence of the first party, I conclude that these two workmen worked for more than 240 days and were terminated without following due provision of law . Accordingly I answer the issues to that effect and passes the following order:

ORDER

(i) Reference is allowed.

Yes.

1. Does union prove that workers viz . Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan worked continuously for more than 240 days i.e. from 20-11-97 to 12-8-98 ?

(ii) The action of first party in not allowing workmen i.e. Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan to report on duty by M/s . Sharde Marine Services , Goa w.e.f. 13-9-98 is not legal and justified.

No.

2. Whether the management proves that , workers under reference abandoned their service after taking full and final settlement before the A.L.C (C) Vasco- da- gama dated 24-6-98 ?

(iii) First party directed to reinstate workmen i.e. Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan and give benefits ofbackwages w.e.f. 13-9-98 and cost Rs . 2000.

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Date: 24-1-2007

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

No.

3. Whether the action of the management of M/s. Sharde Marine Services , Goa in termi- nating the services of S/Shri Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan w.e.f. 13-9-98 is legal and justified?

4. What relief the workmen are entitled to ? Asper order

below

Reason issues 1 , 2 & 3 :

का.आ. 795. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहरलाल नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/ 71 /2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-39012/2/2001- आई आर (एम ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2007 5. To support the claim made in the Claim Statement second party filed affidavit at Ex - 5 and documents produced with it as well as rely on affidavit filed at Ex -6 i.e. affidavit of Mohan Singh and Hanif Khan respectively where both have stated that, they are employee of first party and worked for more than240 days and are terminated without following due procedure of law .

S.O. 795. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central 6.Record and proceedings reveals that, this reference [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1565

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

Ciovernment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/71/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-2-2007.

till hewas terminated w.e.f. 28-11-1998 . The reason given byfirstpartybehind termination was of absenteeism which is not just and proper . Punishment awarded ofdismissal for absenteeism is harsh punishment and against regulations framed more precisely regulation No. 5 to 9 suggests minor punishment to such type of absenteeism. However punishment of dismissal is major one and absenteeism cannot be ground todismiss the second party.

[No. L-39012/2/2001- IR(M)]

N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL No. 2, AT MUMBAI

3.He further stated that, evidence placed by him of his sickness was not considered by Inquiry Officer. Enquiry was not fair and proper , the findings were perverse . So it is submitted that, dismissal under be set aside with direction to first partyto reinstate with backwages and continuity of service.

PRESENT

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2/71 of 2001

Employers in Relation to the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust

The Chairman

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust Sheva, P. O. Nhava

Navi Mumbai -400614.

AND

There Workmen

Shri Mahesh M. Kumbhar

At Shahagh

P. O. Konkan Bhawan Navi Mumbai -400614.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer

: Mr. L. L. D'Souza,

Mr. Saptarshi Ghosh Representatives

For the Workman

4. This is disputed by first party by filing reply Ex - 7 stating that, absenteeism noted of second party is not legal one. Absenteeism was of 95 days right from 9-3-98 to 11-6-98 . Second party remained absent without intimation and without conveying the cause of his absenteeism. The absenteeism of more than 10 days is treated as a misconduct and invite enquiry on which first party can take action of dismissal if the charges of misconduct are proved . It is to be noted that , after serving chargesheet enquiry was conducted. Even prior to that notice dated 29-4-98 was given askinghim to report on duty within 7 days still he did not report onduty nor conveyed cause behind absenteeism as well as produce any documents . Even number of days were given and intimated to second party about enquiry , he did not take not of it, or reported for enquiry and participate in the enquiry . As second party did not cooperate with the Inquiry Officer , no option left with it but to proceed exparte and accordingly enquiry was concluded holding him guilty of misconduct about absenteeism . Opportunity was given to file appeal and after hearing that order of dismissal was confirmed . As no reason was assigned, and no evidence produced by second party about his absenteeism, it is stated that, decision taken by first party of dismissal is just and it did not require to be interfered.

: Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate

Date of passing of Award: 22nd December, 2006.

AWARD PART- I

5. In view of above pleadings , my Ld . Predecessor framed issues at Ex- 10 . Among them issues nos . 1 & 2 on the point of enquiry and perversity of findings are treated as preliminary issues which I answer as follow:

ISSUES

FINDINSGS

1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was as per the principles of natural justice?

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-39012/2/2001 - IR (M) dated 14-5-2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Yes

2. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse ?

Reasons issues Nos . 1 & 2

"Whether the action of the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust in removing Sh. Mahesh M. Kumbhar from employment w.e.f. 24-11-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

6. Second party raised dispute about his dismissal dtd. 24-11-98 stating that the ground of absenteeism treated by first party as a misconduct to terminate is not just and proper . The enquiry conducted was not fair and proper .

2. To support the subject matter referred in the reference, second party filed Claim Statement at Ex -6 stating that, he worked with first party as Technician w.e.f. 5-11-90 71991/07-8 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1566

Evidence lead by second party was not considered by first party. Whereas case of first party is that, sufficient opportunity was given to second party to take part in the enquiry however , he did not utilize it. He ignored the intimation given by first party , did not explain the chargesheet nor filed documents . The charges leveled against him were not disputed by him. When number of opportunities were given to join the enquiry and participate in it, second party purposely did not consider it and did not participate in it . So it is stated that, after giving proper opportunity when enquiry was conducted, now it cannot be set aside observing opportunity was not given to second party.

7. To support that, second party examined himself by filing affidavit at Ex - 14 which is one page affidavit where he reproduced the same thing which he has made out in the Claim Statement. In the cross he admits that, he was served with chargesheet and did not reply. Even he admits that, though he received notices of enquiry he did not report inenquiry explaining he was bed ridden. The result is that, he did not report in the enquiry . He denies that he did not send medical certificate of his sickness to the first party. Even be denies that he did not seek application for leave . Whereas first party choose not to examine any witness and filed pushis to that effect at Ex - 17 .

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 10. The result of enquiry is that enquiry was conducted without involvement of the second party in the enquiry. Infact first party narrates the enquiry and describe itas an exparte enquiry . No doubt first two citations, referred by first party justify their act to proceed exparte, since second party admittedly did not participate in the enquiry . Still fact remains whether his so called medical Certificates were considered by first party and whether thought was givento the so called reason behind absenteeism of second party ? These questions remained unanswered as second party was not heard. So in my considered view, when enquiry conducted was exparte require it is to be declared not fair and proper . Besides findings on that basis given by Inquiry Officer definitely require to be observed not on the facts and the evidence placed before it, means findings isperverse.

11. Considering this position and that second party didnotparticipate in enquiry in my considered view, I have to observe enquiry not fair and proper as well as findings perverse. Accordingly I record my above findings on the above issues and passes the following order :

ORDER

1. Enquiry is not fair and proper .

2. Findings perverse .

3. First party to justify its action by leading evidence on the next date which will be intimated.

4. In the circumstances there is no order as to its cost.

Dtd. 22-12-2006

8. Heard Learned Advocate for second party Shri Sawant and Advocate Lancy D'Souza for 1st party on the point of fairness of enquiry and perversity of findings . Second party advocate placed reliance on he citation published in 1996 LAB IC page 1948, 1996 I CLR page 39 and 2001 III CLR page 930. Whereas first party advocate place reliance on citations published in 2001 LLR page 1213 -Patna High Court, 2001 LLR page 825 Supreme Court, 1995 I CLR page 377 - Supreme Court , 2006 ( 109 ) FLR page 1081-Supreme Court, and 2002 II CLR page 943 - Bombay HighCourt.

9. The record and proceedings reveals that , even in the Court, second party shy in filing the so called medical certificates about his sickness . Record & Proceedings also reveal that, second party totally remained absent in the enquiry and it was an exparte enquiry . The Ld . Advocate for second party rely on number of citations referred above but unfortunately those citations are on the point of awarding punishment whereas , we are on the stage of decidingpart - I award i.e. on the point of fairness of enquiry and perversity of findings . Against that, Advocate for first party referred citation published in 2001 ALR Patna HC page 1213, 2001 LLR SC page 825 where it is observed that, whendiligent failed to participate in enquiry in that case if enquiry is conducted exparte does not require to be disturbed. Besides he place reliance on citation published in 1999 I CLR Page 177 which is on the point of appointing authority which is not subject matter at this stage . This citation published in 2006 FLR page 1081 and citation published in 2002 II CLR page 943 are on the same footing which are not on the point to be considered at this stage .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 796.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधंतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/573/1999- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2007 S.O. 796. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 84/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 22-2-2007 .

[No. L- 22012/573/ 1999 - IR (C - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1567

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

PRESENT : Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer.

ReferenceNo. 84 of2000 .

granted to the union in order to appear in the court andto take suitable step on its behalfbut to no effect. The regular absence ofthe union for more than two years itself indicates that the union is not interested to pursue its case any further and ithas lost its interest . In such circumstance it is notjust, proper and advisable to keep the record pending anymore as no useful purpose is to be served. As such the case is closed and it is hereby

PARTIES:

ORDERED

Agent, Sunderchak Chinakuri 3 Pit Colliery ofM/s . E.C. Ltd. , Dakshinkhanda, Burdwan .

Vrs.

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

Asstt. General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress , Asansol, Burdwan .

Md. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer Representatives :

नई दिल्ली , 22 फरवरी , 2007 For the management: Sri P. K. Das , Advocate .

For the union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pandey, ChiefGeneral Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol.

Industry: Coal

State: WestBengál .

Dated the 19th December, 2006

AWARD

का.आ. 797.-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 26/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-02-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/400/1999- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2007 In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- 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/ 573/99 - IR(CM - II) dated 21-08-2000 has been pleasedto refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

S.O. 797. In pursuance of Section , 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref 26/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofECL, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-2-2007.

"Whether the action of the management of Chinakuri MineNo. 1 is not regularizing S/Sh. S. P. Nonia & 21 others as per their present deployment is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled and from which date ?"

[No. L- 22012/400/1999 - IR(C- II))

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer.

Reference No. 26 of2000 ,

Parties :Agent, Jambad Colliery ofECL, Parsea, Burdwan Vrs.

Onhaving received the Order No. L-22012/573/99- IR(CM - II) dated 21-08-2000 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference Case No. 84 of 2000 was registered on 11-09-2000/31-10-01 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices were issued to the parties concerned by the registered post . Sri P. K. Das , Advocate and Sri S. K. Pandey , Chief General Secretary of the union appeared for the management and the union respectively.

Area Secretary, L.N.M.O.S.S.A. , Kajoragramgram, Burdwan.

Representatives :

For themanagement: SriP. K. Das, Advocate .

For the union (Workman) : Sri P. Banerjee, Advocate

Industry: Coal

State: West Bengal From perusal of the record it transpires that both the partieshave filed their written statement and 27-09-04 was the date fixed for filling their documents . Sri P. K. Das , Advocate appeared for the management but the union left taking step on its behalf since 27-09-04 to up to date . The record further goes to show that several adjournments were

Dated the 29thNovember , 2006 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1568

AWARD

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

Md. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 फरवरी , 2007

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1) and Sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 400/99/-IR( CM - II ) dated 29-02-2000 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 798.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. 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 143/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/272/2002- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी "Whether the action of the management of Jambad Colliery of M/ s . ECL in not accepting the date of birthrecorded in the Mining Sirdarship Certificate ofSh. Rama Shankar Gosai , workman and not forwarding the dispute to Age Determination Committee for assessment of correct age is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

New Delhi , the 22nd February, 2007

S.O. 798. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 143/2003) of the Central Govt. Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur , now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 22-2-2007.

[No. 1-22012/272/2002- IR (C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Having received the Order No. L-22012/400/99/- IR (CM- II) dated 29-02-2000 of the aforesaid reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference Case No. 26 of2000 was registered on 13-03-2000/ 12-10-01 and accordingly an order was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In compliance of the said order notices were issued to the parties concerned by the registered post . Sri P. K. Das, Advocate and Sri P. Banerjee , Advocate appeared in the court to represent the manage- ment and the union respectively .

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 143/2003

Shri C.M. Singh , Presiding Officer:

Workmen/ Union

The Regional Working President , Food Corporation of India Executive Staff Union, P-24, Teela Jamalpura, Bhopal , Bhopal(MP)

Versus

Management

The District Manager , Food Corporation of India , DistrictOffice , Old Vidhan Sabha Complex , Bhopal(MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 13th day of February , 2007

1.The Government of India, Ministry of labour vide itsNotificationNo. L-22012/272/2002- IR (CM- II) dated 8-8- 03 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by thistribunal :-

From perusal of the record it transpires that both the parties have filed their written statements and some Xerox copies ofthe documents along with an affidavit of a witness was filed on behalf of the union. The record further goes to show that the date was fixed for cross examination, of the witness and repeated adjourriments were granted at the request of the learned lawyer of the union to produce the witness for cross examination. It is clear from the order sheets ofthe record that the union left taking step on behalf ofthe union since 26-03-03 . Again notice was issued for appearance of the union and Sri R. Kumar , General Secretary of the union appeared to represent the union on 16-11-04 and at his request 05-01-05 the case was adjourned for cross examination of the witness but unfortunately the union again left taking any step since 05-01-05 to 29-11-06. Several dates were fixed for the appearance of the union in orderto take proper step on its behalf but to no effect . It is obvious from the trend of the union that is not interested topursue the record and it has lost the interest. So in such circumstance it is not just, proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served. As such it is hereby

ORDERED

"Whether the action of the management of Foxxd Corporation of India, Bhopal in not paying the overtime in respect of Security Staff/Watchmen from October, 2000 to March 2001 after taking the work beyond the working hours is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled? " That let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Sendthe copies of the award to the Govt . of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1569

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

not paying the overtime in respect of Security Staff/ Watchmenfrom October -2000 to March - 2001 after taking the work beyond the working hours is legal and jsutifiedand and the workmen are not entitled to any relief. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference . The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the management and against the workmen .

2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 23-9-03 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim. Inspite of sufficient ' service of notice on workmen/Union, the workmen/Union failed to file their statement of claim and therefore vide order dated 23-8-05 of this tribunal , the reference proceeded exparte against the workman.

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

C.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 799.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 158/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/310/98- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th February , 2007

S.O. 799. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14. of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 158/ 99) of the Centrel Govt. Indus . Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-2-2007 .

[No. L- 12012/ 310/98 - IR(B - II)] RAJINDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI 3.The management has filed their Written Statement. Their case inbrief is as follows . That the reference is vague because ithas been made without applying judicious mind. or without taking into consideration of the notification issued by the Government of MP in regard to giving exemptions of the applicable of the M.P. Shop and Establishment Act, 1958 to the offices of Food Corporation of India. That in view of the FCI Headquarters CircularNo. WRC/ 17/ 1 /96 Vol . II dated 15-7-1998 restricting the OTA tothe maximum limit of 1/3rd of the wages during the month and in view of the exemption given bythe State Government in regard to non applicability of the Shop and Establishment Act, 1958 to the offices of the Food Corporation of India, the employees in question are not entitled to any relief. That inview ofHeadquarters Circular No. WRC/ 17/1/96.Vol.II dated 15-7-1998 issued in this regard and notification issued by the State Government giving exemption of the applicability of the Shop and Establishment Act, 1958 hence the question of paying total amount of Rs . 7,30,151/- to the employees doesn't arise . That the Chhola Depot of the Food Corporation of India at Bhopal has prepared and recommended the overtime allowance to the District Office, Bhopal for its payment and accordingly , taking consideration of the circular dated 15-7-98 , the employees were permitted the overtime to the extent of ceiling limit of 1/3 rd of the wages during the month and the 1/3rd overtime payment has already been made/paid to the employees concerned. Beyond ceiling limit, the employees are not entitled for any overtime . That the management is hereby filing statement of overtime both paid and unpaid for taking perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal . That the employees are not entitled for overtime beyond the ceiling limited of 1/3rd wages of total month, hence question of payment of overtimę claimed by the Union does not arise.

I.D. No. 158/99

Inthe matter of dispute between :

4. As the case proceeded exparte against the workmen/Union, no evidence has been adduced on behalf ofworkmen/Union .

5. The management in support of their casehas filed affidavit of Shri K.K. Ramakrishnan , the then working as AreaManager in Area Office of FCI, MP Nagar, Bhopal .

Manoj Kumar through TheGeneral Secretary. Punjab National Bank Workers ' Organisation , 898 , Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006

Workmen

Versus

6. I have heard Shri S.K. Rao , Advocate , the learned counsel for the management . I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

Punjab National Bank Sr.Regl. Manager , PNB , Antriksh Bhawan, 22, K.G.Marg,

NewDelhi -110001 .

Management 7. There is no evidence on behalf of the workmen/ Union for proving their case . Against the above , the management's case is fully proved from the affidavit of management's witness Shri K.K. Ramakrishnan whichhas remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. It is, therefore , held that the action of the management of FCI , Bhopal in

APPEARANCES : Shri Satish Chabra A/R for the workman . Mrs. Surbhi Rana A/R for the Mgt .

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1570

AWARD

reinstatement as there was no appointment. He is not entitled to wages w.e.f. 22-1-98 and he has been already paid for the work he has done. Further, the claimant is not entitled to the benefits of leave and medical aid as he is not an employee of the bank.

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/310/98 - IR(B - II) dated 12-5-1999 hasreferred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication :-

5. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the controverted facts of the written statement were refuted that those of claim statement were reinstated tobe correct.

"Whether the action of Punjab National Bank , Civil Lines, New Delhi in stopping from duty w.e.f. 22-1-98 to Shri Manoj Kumar , Safai Karamchari instead of regularizing his service and not paying him the wages as per their regular Employee is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled to?"

6. Thereafter workman examined himself as WW1 and the management examined Shri G.K. Garg in support of its case as MW1 .

7. I have heard Shai Satish Chhabra A/R for the workman and Mrs. Surbhi Rana A/R for the management at length and perused the record meticulously.

8. Admittedly workman claimant Shri Manoj Kumar worked as czary safai karamchari w.e.f. 30-9-93 till 31-12-96. He worked for 1553 days continuously. He was taken in service wide regional office letter on 15-10-93 . He was given a chance to work in place of Ravinder Singh Sweeper who was promoted as Peon. According to the management he was working in stop gap arrangement vacancy. There is only one post . He was not engaged through due procedure i.e. by interview . However, the claim of the management that the claimant worked by way of stop gap arrangement is not borne out i.e. supported from the statement of management witness Shri G.K. Garg MW1 . There is nothing on record as to who was working on the vacancy against which the workman has worked for 1553 days . However , it is proved that the workman has worked for 1553 days continuously and he has not been given any notice or notice pay . His disengagement is in violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act . It is thus evident that the workman's removal is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The workman has also claimed regularization . His claim that he has worked for 1553 days is not sufficient to prove that he is entitled to regularization in the absence of existence of any regular post of Safai Karamchari in the bank and mere working for 1553 days does not entitle him tobe regularized in the post/job .

2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman Shri Manoj Kumar son of Shri Sudesh Kumar was working in the branch office Civil Lines of Punjab National Bank as temporary Safai Karamchari ( Sweeper ) continuously from 30-9-1993 which fact is verified by the seniority list of the Bank issued on 1-1-96 and 1-1-98 and heworkedthere upto 31-12-1997 (total 1553 days) . Workman was taken in service vide Regional Office letter No. RMD/ STAFF/IR dated 15-10-93 . His salary was credited in his SF A/c No. 33017 through transfer voucher . The Branch Manager , B.O. Civil Lines has accepted that Manoj Kumar got the chance to work as temporary sweeper in place of Shri Rajinder Singh, Sweeper who was promoted as Peon and that no formal appointment letter has been given to the workman as is mandatory as per para 495 of the Sastri Award. Shri Manoj Kumar was working from 30-9-93 without any break and the bank has not given him any annual increment, leave whereas as per Bank's rule he was entitled to get casual leave as well as Medical aid etc. The Branch Manager without assigning any reason without giving any notice arbitrarily terminated his services from 22-1-98 and on 23-1-98 he wrote a letter to the Chief Manager for allowing him to continue working in the branch. Whereupon the General Secretary addressed a letter to the Regional Manager and requested to adjust the aggrieved workman but so far no action seems to have been taken by the bank. It is, therefore, prayed that he be reinstated in service with full back wages from 22-1-98 and all the benefits of leaves and medical aid as admissible to Bank employees from 30- 9-93.

9. There is nothing on record to show that the workman has been engaged or appointed in accordance with the due process and procedure of appoinmtment, therefore, he is not entitled to the relief of regularization in view of the decision captioned as Secretary of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in JT (4 )206. However , his removal is illegal and he is entitled to reinstatement and full back wages w.e.f. 22-1-98 till he is reinstated . Therefore, he be reinstated with back wages w.e.f. 22-1-98 . Award is passed accordingly . File be consigned to record room.

3. The management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the dispute is not an industrial dispute in terms of section 2 (K) of the I.D. Act as the applicant is not a workman in terms of section 2(s ) of the I.D. Act. He was neither appointed by the Bank nor there exists any relationship of employer - employee between the respondent and the applicant as such the claim is not maintainable . That as per the provisions of section 16.9 of Desai Award, persons engaged on casual basis are also excluded from the operation of the award which governs the service conditions as applicable to the employees in the banking industry .

Further it is ordered that the requisite number ofcopies of this award be sent to the Central Government for necessary action at their end. Dated: 14-2-07 SANT SINGH BAL, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2007 का.आ. 800.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के 4. On merits it is stated Manoj Kumar has worked as a temporary sweeper from 30-9-93 to 31-12-96 and this was only a stop gap arrangement. The case of the workman is denied by the management except that he was employed and worked from 30-9-93 to 31-12-96 , paid wages being credited in his S.F. account of the claimant and prayed that the claim may be rejected as the claimant is not entitled to [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 200/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/22/2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

1571

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

date ? What other directions are necesary in the matter?"

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th February, 2007 S.O. 800.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 200/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur, now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on23-2-2007 .

[No. L- 12012/22/2000- IR (B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/200/2000

Date:15-02-2007

Petitioner :Shri Sanjay Ramachandra Raut, PartyNo. 1 R/O Malipura, At & Post & Tah . Nerparsopant, Dist. Yavatmal (M.S.) 445102 .

Versus

Respondent PartyNo. 2 : The Regional Manager, Bank of Mahaashtra, Regional Office, Ghanshyam Bhawan, Opp . Police Head Quarter, Mul Road, Chandrapur (M.S. ) 42402 .

AWARD

Dated 15thFebruary, 2007

1. CentralGovernment, after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Raut, R/ o Malipura, At & Post & Tah . Nerparsopant, Dist . Yavatmal (M.S. ) Party No. 1 and Regional Manager , Bank of Maharashtra, Regional Office , Ghanshyam Bhawan, Opp . Police Head Quarter, Mul Road, Chandrapur Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L- 12012/22/2000- IR (B - II) Dt . 30-05-2000 under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Section10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether the action of the Managerment namely Regional Manager , Bank of Maharashtra, Region, Chandrapur, dismissing Shri Sanjay Ramchandra Raut, Ex -Clerk , Bank of Maharashtra, Digras Branch, Dist. Yavatmal , is legal proper or justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from which 3. By an Order Dt . 3-07-2006 I have already concluded that the Enquiry was legal , proper and in accordance of principles of natural justice giving full opportunity to the petitioner . Subsequently to the order thematter was fixed for evidence on the point of perversity offindings of enquiry officer as well as for consideration of adequacy of the punishment . The petitioner did not appear even subsequent to the order on preliminary issue, he did not adduce any evidence to show as to how the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and also that the punishment awarded was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged charges . Similarly as the petitioner did not file any evidence the management has also closed his case and requested to consider the evidence, which is already on record. Nowtherefore, the following points arise for my consideration .

"Whether the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse and whether the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the alleged act against the petitioner .

4. I have heard the counsel for the Respondent Management and have gone through the written notes of arguments filed on its behalf. It seen that the petitioner S.R. Raut was charge sheeted with the following charges:-

(i) Causing damage to the property of the bank and its customers a gross misconduct Clause 19.5( d) ofB.P. Settlement .

(ii) Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss a gross misconduct under clause 19.5(j ) B.P. Settlement.

(iii) It seems that Shri S.R. Raut was working as a clerk at Digras Branch from 2-8-1993 to 2-07-1998 on 20-10-1995 a withdrawal of Rs. 20,000/- drawn on Saving Bank A/c . No. 9254 in the name of Shri P.D. Joshi was presented at the counter for payment . The petitioner Mr. Raut without passing the counter withdrawal slip put the ledger for number on it and sent it to the passing officer after entering ina payment close .

(iv) It is also alleged that Mr. Raut has received the payment ofRs . 20,000.

(v) The second allegation was that a Cheque of Rs . 12,400 drawn on the Account No. 9238 was presented for collection by Yavatmal Urban Co-op . Bank on 1-07-1997. The petitioner without posting the Cheque prepared the voucher for issuing the Cheque for amount of proceeds .After entering on the transfer scroll ofthat day, due to which it is alleged that the Shri S.R. Raut has increased the total debit side of the saving bank supplementary of that date without writing the Cheque in the supplementary . Thus according to the 1572

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 192

management it has sustained a loss of Rs . 32,400/- to the act of the petitioner .

damages to the property of the bank a lenient view cannot be justified. No doubt there is no evidence brought by either party regarding the cican account of past service of the petitioner or there were some faults against him by the management . The nature of the misconduct shows that heavy loss was caused to do bank . It also seen that it was not by mistake or by ove lecking the work in a haste . In fact it seems to be a deliberate one . In such circumstances the punishment awarded a thy management is also cannot be treated as disproacrocate to the alleged misconduct . The punishment of discase is also proper and the order of enquiry officer does not acquire any interference. Hence the reference is answer in the negative . It is ordered that the dismissal order of Rogonal Manager, dismissing Shri S.R. Raut is legal , proper aad justified . And the petitioner is not entitled for any relief .

Hence this award . Dated: 15-2-2007 A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 801, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दी मेवाड़ आंचलिक ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/162/98- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th February , 2007

S.O. 801. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 1/99) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Udaypur , now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of The Mewar Anchalik Gramin Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 26-2-2007.

[No. L- 12012/162/98 - IR (B - I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 5. It seems that the Disciplinary Authority issued a charge sheet and initiated the enquiry after appointing the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer Shri Athawle on the day of firsthearing explained the charges to the petitioner Shri S.R. Raul . The petitioner in the presence of Enquiry Officer, Presenting Officer admitted his misconduct and requested for the pardon. He prayed on humanitarian ground to excuse him and allow to continue in service . Thus the petitioner did not contest the enquiry on the contraryhehad admitted the charges against him therefore , even the evidence was not recorded and on the basis of document and this admission of the petitioner the enquiry officer gave a reasoned report finding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct which were charged against him . The documents were in the handwriting of the petitioner, which he was expected to write and the has not written those documents as per established procedure of bank. He was working in that office for near about 5 years and he was having knowledge of all the procedure . His contention is that his admission were extracted by enquiry officer with some assurance . However, he was served with the dismissal order . It is also alleged that later on second charge sheet was issued . Since I have already concluded that the enquiry was proper and legal. Now there is no question of considering the issuance of second charge sheet. In fact it has no relevance with the first charge sheet . Whatever it may be the findings of the enquiry officer are clear enough to show that the petitioner has in unequivocal terms confessed to the charges . In fact he was handling the accounts of the customers who were prestigious or esteem customers of the bank . Non- mentioning of the cheques in the scroll and the withdrawal form was with a motive of gaining . It is also alleged that he has caused the loss of Rs . 32,400 to the bank in this episode and when there are admissions regarding such serious misconduct, how the findings of the enquiry officer can be regarded as perverse? On the contrary the documents on record itself are sufficient to prove the charge and accordingly the enquiryofficer in addition to his admission has considered thedocuments and thus the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be treated perverse . They are proper . It is the contentions of the petitioner that the admission was extractred by inducement by the bank but even the Statement of Claim is not clear as to who had induced him and what was the inducement there is nothing on recordto hold that the findings are perverse.

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण ५० श्रम न्यायालय , उदयपुर ( राज. ) पीठासीन अधिकारी- श्री हरसुखराम पूनिया, आर. एच.जे. एस. प्रकरण सं. 1/99 श्रम वाद

श्री रमेशचन्द्र पिता डालचन्दजी जाति सेन निवासी गोदाणा , तहसील झाडोल, जिला उदयुपर

-प्रार्थी

विरुद्ध

1. श्री मेवाड़ आंचलिक ग्रामीण बैंक , प्रधान कार्यालय 22 गोत्रिपुरा कॉलोनी, उदयुपर 6. The second thing is regarding the proportion of punishment . According to the petitioner the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct . The management ought to have taken lenient view by imposing a lesser punishment instead of dismissal of the service . It has not considered his 11 years unblemished service . The submissions of the petitioner cannot be accepted . It being a bank the management is expected to maintain his reputation as well as to guard its property which includes the interest of its customer as well as the goodwill of the bank . It was necessary for the bank to consider the gravity ofthe misconduct when the misconduct is causing loss or 1573

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 श्री शाखा प्रबन्धक,

मेवाड़ आंचलिक ग्रामीण बैंक, कोल्यारी

-विपक्षीगण

उपस्थित: -

प्रार्थी की ओर से

: श्री अरूण व्यास ,

विपक्षीगण की ओर से श्री बी. एल. गुप्ता

पंचाट

नोटिस, नोटिस के एवज में वेतन , छंटनी मुआवजा आदि नहीं दिया । विपक्षी द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति प्राकृतिक न्याय व विधि के विरुद्ध होकर अवैध व शून्य घोषित होने योग्य है । प्रार्थी ने इस अवैध सेवा मुक्ति पर एतराज कर पुनः सेवा में लेने का निवेदन किया परन्तु विपक्षी ने कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की । इसलिये प्रार्थना की है कि प्रार्थी की दिनांक 14-3-97 को की गई सेवामुक्ति अवैध व शून्य घोषित की जावे । प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्ति दिनांक14-3-97 से ही सेवा में मय सेवा निरन्तरता , पिक्सेशन , स्थाईकरण आदि लाभ सहित सेवा में लिये जाने व सेवा मुक्ति से पुनः सेवा में लिये जाने तक का वेतन मय ब्याज दिलाया जावे व अन्य कोई राहत जो उचित हो वह दिलाई जावे । दिनांक 30-12-2006

भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग के श्रम शक्ति भवन नई दिल्ली के द्वारा आदेश सं. एल-12012/ 162/98- आई आर ( बी-1 ) दिनांक 22-1-1999 के द्वारा निम्नलिखित प्रसंग इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रेषित किया गया-

"Whether the action of the Management ofMewar Anchalik Gramin Bank, Udaipur in terminating the services of Shri Ramesh Chand Sen, Ex . Daily Rated Employees w.e.f. 14-3-97 is legal, proper and justified? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

उक्त आशय का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 1-2-99 को नियमित श्रम वाद संख्या 1/99 दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया और पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये । जिस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षीगण की ओर से जवाब पेश किया गया ।

प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत क्लेम के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है

विपक्षी ने अपने जबाव में प्रार्थना पत्र के तथ्यों को अस्वीकार किया तथा यह अंकित किया कि प्रार्थी ने पूर्णतया अंशकालीन दैनिक मजदूर के रूप में तत्समय प्रचलित पारिश्रमिक दर पर विपक्षी की कोल्यारी शाखा में दिनांक 27-6-94 से 13-3-97 तक मात्र 55 दिन ही कार्य किया । प्रार्थी को मात्र आकस्मिक मजदूर के रूप में रखा । बैंक में नियमित कर्मचारी के पुनः कार्य पर आने पर कार्य की आवश्यकता न होमे से दिनांक 14-3-97 के पश्चात् प्रार्थी से कोई केजूअल बेसिस पर न तो कार्य लिया गया न प्रार्थी नियोजित रहा ।. प्रार्थी का नियोजन ही आकस्मिक अंशकालीन था तथा आवश्यकतानुसार था । अतः उसे सेवा से टरमिनेट करने की आवश्यकता ही नहीं थी। प्रार्थी ने किसी भी वर्ष में 240 दिन कार्य नहीं किया न ही उसे नियोजन में रखा ऐसी स्थिति में नोटिस पे अथवा मुआवजा देने का प्रयत्न नहीं किया । बैंक में नियमित नौकरी नियमानुसार चयन प्रक्रिया में खुले विज्ञापन से होती है तथा अभी प्रतिबन्ध है । विपक्षी सं. 2 को अनावश्यक पक्षकार बनाया गया है । अतः प्रार्थी कोई राहत पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।.

कि-

प्रार्थी की ओर से स्वयं प्रार्थी रमेशचन्द्र, शांतिलाल सेन , कालूलाल नाई के शपथ पत्र पेश हुए जिनसे विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की है ।: प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रकाश सेन का भी शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ , लेकिन वह जिरह हेतु नहीं आया इसलिये उसका शपथ पत्र साक्ष्य में नहीं पढ़ा जा सकता है । विपक्षी की ओर से अनिल मेहता का शपथ पत्र पेश हुआ, जिनसे प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि ने जिरह की हैं 'लेकिन उसकी जिरह दिनांक 12-1-06 को अधूरी रही , काफी अवसर दिये जाने के बाद भी विपक्षी गवाह अनिल मेहता जिरह हेतु उपस्थित नहीं हुए अतः दिनांक 9-11-06को उसकी जिरह बन्द की गई । विपक्षी ने अन्य कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं करना चाहा । दोनों पक्षों की ओर से संबंधित दस्तावेजों को प्रदर्शित कराया गया ।

उभय पक्षों के प्रतिनिधियों की बहस विस्तार से सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया ।

प्रार्थी ने अपने तकों के समर्थन में निम्नांकित न्यायिक निर्णय प्रस्तुत किये हैं:-

( 1 ) डब्ल्यूएल सी ( राज. ) 2005 ( 3 ) पेज 430

(2) आर एल डब्ल्यू2001 (3 ) पेज 300

(3) डब्ल्यूएल सी ( राज. ) यूसी. 2000 पेज 439 प्रार्थी की प्रथम नियुक्ति दिनांक 27-6-94 को विपक्षी के अधीन शाखा कोल्यारी में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में प्रतिदिन 22 रुपये मजदूरी तय की गई तब से लगातार प्रार्थी विपक्षी के अधीन कार्यरत रहा । बाद में 32 रुपये प्रतिदिन कर दिया गया । प्रार्थी को विपक्षी के अधीन कोल्यारी ब्रांच में चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी का कार्य करने हेतु नियोजित किया गया तथा प्रार्थी से सफाई, पानी भरना , डाक पहुंचाना, स्लिपें भरवाना , कागजात टेबलों पर पहुंचाना , वसूली का कार्य , गड्डियां बनाना आदि काम भी दिया जाता रहा । प्रार्थी दिनांक 27-6-94 से लगातार दिनांक 13-2-97 तक विपक्षी की उक्त शाखा में कार्यरत रहा । उसकी सेवाएं नियमित कर्मचारी की परिभाषा में आती है । प्रार्थी की विपक्षी के अधीन सेवाएं संतोषप्रद रही है । दिनांक 14-3-97 से प्रार्थी को शाखा प्रबन्धक द्वारा बिना कोई कारण बताये सेवा में लेने से इन्कार कर दिया, उसे कोई लिखित आदेश नहीं दिया । विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को हटा कर बाबूखां पुत्र न्याज मोह. को लाभान्वित करने की गरज से प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त कर दिया जो अवैध व शून्य है । प्रार्थी को अलग - अलग नामों से भुगतान किया गया, जबकि उक्त अवधि में प्रार्थी ही एक मात्र चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी रहा । प्रार्थी नियमित कर्मचारी होकर लगभग तीन वर्ष तक लगातार सेवा करने के उपरान्त अन्य को लाभान्वित करने हेतु प्रार्थी को बिना किसी कारण सेवा पृथक कर दिया । इस सेवा पृथक करने से पूर्व कोई

71991/07-9 1574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26 , 1928

विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि की ओर से अपने तर्कों के समर्थन में सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज फाईन्डर 2006 ( ऑन लाईन ) दिसम्बर , 19 , 2006 का न्यायिक निर्णय प्रस्तुत किया है ।

मैंने पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध मौखिक एवं दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य, प्रस्तुत न्यायिक निर्णयों एवं संबंधित विधि का अवलोकन किया । इस प्रकरण में मेरा निर्णय इस प्रकार है :-

प्रार्थी रमेशचन्द्र ने विपक्षी संख्या 2 के अधीन अंशकालिक दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में दिनांक 27-6-94 से 13-3-97 की अवधि में केवल 55 दिन कार्य किया । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम आवेदन पत्र में बताया है कि उसने करीब पौने तीन वर्ष तक लगातार विपक्षी सं. 2 शाखा में कार्य किया , और प्रत्येक वर्ष 240 दिन से भी अधिक अवधि तक कार्य किया । प्रार्थी के इस कथन की पुष्टि रेकार्ड पर उपलब्ध मौखिक एवं दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से नहीं होती है । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम आवेदन पत्र में यह भी बताया है कि उसने अलग-अलग नाम से उक्त शाखा में लगातार कार्य किया । अगर यह बात सही है तोफिर इस प्रकार की फर्जी कार्यवाही में प्रार्थी स्वयं भी भागीदार रहा है । गलत नाम से काम कर स्वयं उस कृत्य का लाभ प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता है , बल्कि ऐसा कृत्य आपराधिक श्रेणी में माना जाता है । रेकार्ड पर उपलब्ध मौखिक एवं दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी संख्या 2 की शाखा में केवल 55 दिन तक कार्य किया है जो कार्य अंशकालिक व दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में किया है । ऐसा व्यक्ति नियमित श्रमिक के रूप में लगातार सेवा में बने रहने का अधिकारी नहीं रहता है । ऐसा व्यक्ति धारा 25 ( एफ ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधानों का लाभ प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता है । प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति निर्धारित व चयन प्रक्रिया के आधार पर नहीं हुई थी , बल्कि उसे दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में अंशकालिक कार्य पर लिया गया था ।

परिणामस्वरूप इन उपरोक्त हालात में प्रार्थी श्रमिक रमेशचन्द्र का क्लेम आवेदन पत्र चलने योग्य नहीं है जो विपक्षीगण द्वारा ऐसे श्रमिक को नियमित सेवा में न रख कर सेवा से पृथक किया है जो कार्यवाही उचित एवं विधिअनुसार थी । अतः प्रार्थी श्रमिक रमेशचन्द्र विपक्षीगण से किसी भी प्रकार की राहत प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

अतः भारत सरकार के श्रमिक विभाग के श्रम शक्ति भवन , नई दिल्ली के द्वारा प्रेषित प्रसंग दिनांक 22-1-1999 को उत्तरित करते हुए पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि प्रबन्धक मेवाड आंचलिक ग्रामीण बैंक, उदयपुर द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक श्री रमेशचन्द्र सेन को नियमित सेवा में न रख कर सेवा से पृथक करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं विधि अनुसार थी । अतः प्रार्थी श्रमिक रमेशचन्द्र पिता डालचन्दजी जाति सेन किसी भी प्रकार की राहत पप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं रहता है ।

पंचाद प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार के श्रम विभाग का प्रेषित हो ।

हरसुखराम पूनिया , पीठासीन अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 802.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 80/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/193/2001- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th February , 2007 S.O. 802. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. Nos . 80 / 2001) of the Centrel Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - II, New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on26-2-2007.

[No. L- 12012/193/2001 - IR (B - I) )

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 80/2001 Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai

Present: Sh . J. N. Kapoor

-1stParty Sh . J. Buther

-2nd Party In the matter of :

Shri Mohan Singh Bedi .

6/67, Old Rajinder Nagar .

New Delhi - 110060

Versus

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India .

Delhi Zonal Office No. 1,

11.Parliament Street ,

New Delhi - 11000 ) .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 193/ 2001 - IR(R- I) Central Government dt. 16-10-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether hon of the management of State Bank of India, Office , Parliament Street, in terminating ... ervices of Shri Mohan Singh Bedi , Ex- Messenger , DPS Extension Counter , Mathura Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 1-6-2000 is justified ? If not , what relief the workmen concerned is entitle ?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that there was acute shortage ofMessengers at Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar Branch, as they were mostly engaged for Bank's services i.e. carrying and distributing Bank Dak and clearing cheques from one place to another place . To augment the strength of the subordinate staff the workman was appointed as Messenger at the branch against permanent vacaricy with effect from 16-6-1990 , at a fixed salary ofRs . 2,000 p.m. The management withdrew the permanent Messenger posted at D.P.S. Extension Counter of the Bank and posted the workman , immediatedly on appointment at the D.P.S. Extension Counter to carry out all the indoor and outdoor duties of the Bank as Messenger i.e. subordinate staff.

That as to avoid recruitment of messengere in the Bank theManagement for malafide reasons had shown the workman as Courier on paper for payment of wages only and had been paying him fixed wages as Courier/ Messenger . His last wages were Rs . 3,587 per month . The fact was that the workman was messenger and performing all the indoor and outdoor duties of a messenger which were being performed by a permanent messenger. The payments as Courier were made/shown on paper to conceal and hide the fact that they had appointed a Messenger . This was purposely done to circumvent the rules and deprive the workman the benefits of regular and permanent employee . Thus the management had been acting malafide and following nakedly unfair labour practice .

That the Management was fully aware that the workman was being utilized by the Bank as full time Messenger from the date of his appointment .

That the workman was attending duties in the Bank from 8.45 A.M. and was leaving the Bank at 5.00P.M. and since the date of his appointment he had been perfoming the following duties in the Bank :-

(a) Working as Cash Messanger - Stitching notes etc.

(b) Stamping of cheque books .

(d) Carrying cash from the Extension Counter to the branch and branch to the Extension counter .

(e) Distribution of Dak .

(f) Stitching vouchers and stamping vouchers .

(g) Adjusting ledger sheets in ledger .

(h) Stitching cash , and

(i) Doing all other messengerial duties which were being assigned from time to time .

Besides all the above noted messengerial duties the workınan was also asked to perform clerical duties , in case of emergency which fact can be verified from the Bank's

1575

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

records . It is evident from the Bank records that the workman has been appointed as Messeenger to perform all messengerial duties but shown as Courier to circumvent the legal position for malafide reasons . The action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice and colourable exercise of powers .

That in the terms of the Agreement dated 27-10-88 and 9-1-1991 , entered between the Bank and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation all temporary, casual and daily wagers employees who worked in the Bank for more than 30 days in a calender year between 1-7-1975 to 14-8-1991 , were required to be empanelled and finally absorbed permanently in the bank service . Several thousand employees of this category have been recently absorbed permanently by the Bank on the basis of length of their service whereas the Bank did not consider the claim of the workman who had the longest service and fulfilled all requisite qualification required by the Bank .

That the workman submitted representation to the Dy.General Manager on 29-11-1999 in this regard; the copy ofwhich is enclosed marked Annex . ' A' . The Management did not reply the workman in the matter despite reminders . TheManagement instead of considering the representation sympathetically and judiciously turned hostile towards the workman.

That theManagement stopped payment of wages to the workman and the workmen represented in this regard videhis letter dated 26-2-2000; the copy of which is enclosed marked Annex . 'B ' .

That the workman sent second reminder to the Deputy General Manager to its reprsentation dated 29-11-1999 which was sent not yet considered , vide his letter dated 4-5-2000, the copy of which is enclosed marked Annex . ' C' .

That the Management instead of redressing the genuine grievances of the workman started harassing the workman and did not pay his wages for the month ofMarch and Aprf, 2000. The workman submitted his representation in this regard vide his letter dated 29-5-2000; the copy of which is enclosed mark Annex . ' D' .

That all the above representation of the workman made the management hostile and vindictive toward the workman and they terminated the services of the workman as at the close of business on 1-6-2000 , without any speaking orders and without any chargesheet and without any notice.

That the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) , New Delhi videhis letter dated 12-7-2000; the copy ofwhich is enclosed alongwith its annexures marked Annex . ' E' and the same betreatedas part of this statement of claim of the workman.

That the workman also submitted rejoinder before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (C) , New Delhi dated 15-11-2000; the copy of which is enclosed along with its [PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

1576

three annexures and marked as Annex . ' F ' to this Statement of claim . The same may also be treated as part of the Statement of Claim of the workman.

That on various dates the conciliation proceedings took place . The Asstt . Labour Commissioner suggested the Management to settle the case and reinstate the workman in view of huge number of documents produced bythe workman in support of his claim but the Management took negative stand for malafide reasons and as such the proceedings ended in failure .

That the Conciliation Officer submitted its failure reportto the Secretary , Ministry of Labour , Govt . of India, New Delhi vide his letter No. ALC.HQ 6/7/15/2000 dated 24-4-2001; the copy of which is enclosed marked Annex. 'G'

service and had his own three wheeler scooter . The claimant himself approached the Branch for rendering courier service and hiring of his three wheeler scooter No. DER - 3440 and for that he had charged whenever his three wheeler was hiredor rendered courier service for the officers/employees oftheBranch. There was an agreement for rendering courier service and an amount was fixed per month . As per the agreement of the claimant used to pick up the daks /letters/ documents from the Branch /Extension Counter and delivered at the places of the addresses and accordingly the charges for such services were paid . The claimant had written a letter dated 6-11-1997 requesting for enhancement ofthe contracted money of Rs . 3152 to Rs . 3400 paid on voucher . The voucher was in common format which is not indicative of employer -employee relationship . Therefore , the allegations as made out in the claim are wrong and denied. It appears that taking advantage of his access to bank premises the claimant has fabricated documents for claiming employment .

Thatthe contents of para 3 of the claim are wrong and denied . The claimant was never appointed as Messenger at the Extension Counter of the Bank. The allegation of withdrawing of permanent messenger at DPS Extension Counter is false . Since the claimant was not an employee performing of any duty as alleged would not arise at all .

TheManagement has filed Written Statement . In the written it hasbeen stated that there existed no employer- employee relationship between the Bank and the claimant . No letter of appointment was issued to him . The Bank has its own recruitment rules for recruiting employees and being a Statutory Organisation cannot bypass the recruitment procedure . It is also to comply with the reservations rules/ guideline . It is also submitted that the Branch Manager had no authority to appoint any person in the service of the bank . The claimant was never appointed by the Bank nor he was subject to any recruitment rules . Therefore , the claimant is not a " Workman " as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act . The claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone .

Thatthere existed no Industrial Dispute as defined under Section 2 (k) of the 10 Act . Since the claimant was not a workman as stated above there would arise no Industrial Dispute. Therefore , the claim is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed as there arose or existed no Industrial Dispute .

That the Management Bank being a Statutory Organisation has its own rule and regulations of recruitment. It is to follow the reservation policy of the Govt. of India and other guidelines on recruitment from time totime. The claimant was never recruited by the Bank inaccordance with its recruitment rules . No appointment order was issued to the claimant. Therefore , there would arise no right in favour of the claimant to maintain the present claim . Therefore , the claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

That the contents of para 4 are wrong and denied. The claimant was never recruited nor appointed in the services of the Bank. Therc existed no employer -employees relationship between the Bank and claimant . The claimant was not a workman and , therefore , there would arise no industrial dispute . It is wrong and denied that the claimant was shown as courier on paper and what was paid was wages . The claimant was operating courier service and he used to collect letters /documents from the Branch/ Extension Counter for delivery to the addressees and for that Branch/Extension Counter for delivery to the addressees and for that purpose he charged the Bank . The amounts so charged by the claimant for courier service were paid to the claimant . The allegation of unfair labour practice , malafide are wrong and denied being devoid of any merits . It is wrong and denied that claimant was paid Rs . 3587 per month lastly . Since he was not an employee the question of paying any wages or Rs . 3587 would not arise at all . It is further submitted that the claimant was having three wheeler scooter No. DER.3440 and the bank was paying for hiring of his vehicle . The Management was not having any control over the claimant, it was only contractual work .

Thatthe contents of para 1 of claim statement needs no reply being reproduction of Reference Order .

That the contents of para 5 are wrong and denied . It is wrong and denied that the claimant was utilized by the Bank as fulltime messenger from the date of his appointment as alleged . The claimant was not appointed as messenger at all and hence performing the duty of a messenger in the Bank would not arise at all .

That the contents of para 2 of claim statement are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the claimant was not an employee of the Bank . The claimant was never appointed asMessenger at DPS Extension Counter , Mathura Road, New Delhi with effect from 16-6-1990 at a salary of Rs . 2000 per month . The claimant was having courier [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1577

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

That the contents of para 6 of the claim are wrong and denied . It is wrong and denied that the claimant was attending the duty in Bank from 8.45 AM to 5 PM and performing the duties as enumerated in this para. The duties mentioned in this para were not performed at all by the claimant . In any event the duties mentioned in this para were never assigned to him. Therefore the question of performing the duties mentioned in this para would not arise at all .

From purusal of the pleadings of the parties the following issues for determination arise :-

1. Whether the workman has worked as Courier orMessengerfrom 16-06-1990 to 01-06-2000 ?

2. Whether the management has committed unfair labour practice in not giving regular : appointment to the workman ?

That the contents of para 7 are wrong and denied. The claimant was never asked to perform clerical duties nor messenger duties . It is wrong and denied that the claimant was appointed as messenger and had performed the duties of messenger. The allegation of unfair labour practice and colourable exercise of power are wrong and denied .

3. Whether the workman deserves reinstatement ?

4. To what amount of back wages the workman isentitled ?

5. To what relief the workman is entitled ?

That the contents of para 8 are wrong and denied. The agreement dated 27-10-1988 and 9-1-1991 would not apply to the facts of the present case . Hence the rest of the allegations are wrong and denied.

ISSUE No. 1

That the contents of para 9 as stated are wrong and denied . The Bank received the representation dated 29-11-1999 but did not reply as the demand of the claimant was unreasonable and unjustified.

That the contets of para 10 are wrong and denied. The allegation of stopping of payment of wages is wrong and denied. The Bank did not receive letter dated 26-2-2000.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that toaugment the strength of subordinate staff, the workman has been appointed as Messenger at the branch against a permanent vacancy w.e.f. 16-6-1990 . The permanent Messengerwas withdrawn posted at DPS Extenion Counter of the bank and the workman was posted at his place to carry out all the indoor and outdoor duties of the bank as Messenger/subordinate staff.

That the contents of para 11 of claim are wrong and denied . The letter mentioned in this para was not received by theBank.

That the contents of para 12 are wrong and denied being misconceived . No grievance would arise to the claimant as he was not an employee of the Bank . The Bank did not receive any letter dated 29-5-2000 . Since the claimant was not an employee of the Bank the question of paying wages for the month of March and April, 2000 would not arise at all. In any event the allegations are outside the scope of the Reference Order and the Hon'ble Court would not go beyond the scope of the order of Reference .

It was further submitted from the side of the workman that to avoid recruitment of messengers in the Bank the Management for malafide reasons had shown the workman as Courier on paper for payment of wages only and had beenpaying him fixed wages as Courier/Messenger . His last wages were Rs . 3,587 per month . The fact was that the workman was a Messenger and performing all the indoor and outdoor duties of a messenger which were being performed by a permanent messenger . The payments as Courier were made/ shown on paper to conceal and hide the fact that they had appointed a Messenger . This was purposely done to circumvent the rules and deprive the workman of the benefits of regular and permanent employee. Thus the management had been acting malafidely and following nakedly unfair labour practice .

That the contents of para 13 are wrong and denied. Since the claimant was not an employee the question of terminating the services on 1-6-2000 would not arise at all . Rest of the allegations are misconceived and hence wrong and denied .

That the contents of paras 14 to 18 needs no reply as these paras relates to conciliation proceedings . It is submitted that in view of the submissions made in this written statement the demand of the claimant for reinstatement is unjustified and unreasonable . The claim is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has reitereated the averments of his claim

Itwas further submitted that the workman was assigned duty in the bank from 8.45 AM and was leaving the bank at 5.00 pm. He has been performing the work of Cash Messenger just as Stitching notes etc. , stamping of cheque books , attending the officials and clerical staff of the bank as messenger , carrying Cash from the extension counter to the branch and from branch to the extension counter, distribution of daks , stitching vouchers and stamping vouchers , adjusting ledger sheets in ledger, stitching notes and doing all other messengerial duties [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) 1578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

which were being assigned from time to time . Sometimes the workman was asked to perform clerical duties also.

Itwas further submitted that in the terms of the Agreement dated 27-10-88 and 9-1-1991 , entered between the Bank and the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation all temporary , casual and daily wagers employees who worked in the Bank for more than 30 days in a calendar year between 1-7-1975 to 14-8-1991 , were required to be empanelled and finally absorbed permanently in the bank service . Several thousand employees of this category have been recently absorbed permanently by the Bank on the basis of length of their service whereas the Bank did not consider the claim of the workman who had the longest service and fulfilled all requisite qualification required by the Bank.

The workman has filed documents B - 40 to B -60 and he has narrated the duties performed by him throughout his engagement . These documents have not been denied bythe management . These documents are photocopies of 555 bills enclosed with the statement . These bills have not been denied . These documents indicate that full time work was taken from the workman and he was in fact a messenger. Hewas not a courier . B -59 and B -60 contains the particulars ofthe work done by the workman in respect of counterfoil slips of the fee collected in cash at DPS counter and handed over to the school authority against respondents . The workman has made entries in the counterfoils . The documents pertaining to these particulars have not been denied by the bank . B -67 is the Identity Card issued by the bank . He has been designated as messenger . B - 62 is a certificate issued by the office incharge , DPS Extension Counter .He has certified that the workman performed the duties of messenger at DPS extension counter from 21-07-1994 to 27-12-1994. There is another certificate issued by the competent authority . It has been mentioned in this certificate that the workman was working as messenger at DPS Extenion Counter from 1998 onwards . These certificates establish the fact that the workman was working asmessenger .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that there existed no employer - employee relationship between the bank and the claimant. No letter of appointment was issued to him . The Bank has its own recruitment rules for recruiting employees and being a Statutory Organisation cannot bypass the recruitment procedure . It is also to comply with the reservations rules/guidelines . It is also submitted that the Branch Manager had no authority to appoint any person in the service of the bank .

MW1 has admitted as under : -

It was further submitted from the side of the Management Bank being a Statutory Organisation has its own rules and regulations of recruitment. It is to follow the reservation policy of the Govt . of India and other guidelines onrecruitment from time to time . The claimant was never recruited by the Bank in accordance with its recruitment rules. No appointment order was issued to the claimant . Therefore , there would arise no right in favour of the claimantto maintain the present claim. Therefore , the claim is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

" I do not know who was the permanent messenger atDPS bank counter during 16-06-90 to 01-06-2000. I am not aware whether any messenger was posted there. I do not know who was posted incharge of extension counter from 16-06-90 to 01-06-2000 but from record I find that one Shri Banga was the incharge . I have seen the court file but there is no agreement between the workman and the bank as the bank has not filed the same . The bank has been paying conveyance bills which I have seen from the court file ."

MW1 has failed to disclose as to who was the permanent messenger at DPS banks counter during 16-06-1990 to 01-06-2000 . It amply proves that there was no permanent messenger at DPS counter but this workman performed all the dutics of a messenger .

MW1 has further admitted that no agreement between the workman and the bank has been filed on the record whereas the case of the management is that the workman worked under the contract as courier. No such agreement has been filed on record . This plea of the management appears to be mischievous .

It was further submitted that there was an agreement for rendering courier service and an amount was fixed per month. As per the agreement the claimant used to pick up the daks/letters/documents from the Branch/Extension Counter and deliver at the places of the addressses and accordingly the charges for such services were paid . The claimant had written a letter dated 6-11-1997 requesting for enhancement of the contracted money of Rs . 3152 to Rs . 3400 paid on voucher . The voucher was in common format which is not indicative of employer/employee relationship . Therefore , the allegations as made out in the claim are wrong and denied . It appears that taking advantage of his access to bank premises the claimant has fabricated documents for claiming employment .

The substantial question is whether the workman was a messenger or his appointment was contractual and he was given the duty of handing over daks to different places and he was performing the duties of a courier on contract basis.

MW1 has further admitted that some of the bank's books were written by the workman which he had seen from the court file . MW1 has admitted that the workman was writing in the books of the bank, so the case of the management that the workman was simply a courier for carrying daks on a three wheeler miserably fails . The documents filed on the record and the certificate issued by [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

the competent authorities and the admission of the management witness establishes the fact that the workman has worked as messenger from 16-06-1990 to 07-06-2000 for more than 10 years . Thus this stands proved that the workman was not a contractual courier but he was a messenger throughout and he has rendered 10 years service as messenger at the DPS extension counter of the bank . He has performed 240 days at least in the year 91 , 92 , 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 , 99. He has worked for 6 months in 1990 and 6 months in 2000. This issues is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 2

Itbecomes quite obvious from the findings on issue no. 1 that there was permanent post at DPS extension counter. The permanent staff was withdrawn from there and the workman was posted at his place . The work is of permanent nature . The workman was posted against a vacant post. He discharged all the duties of a messenger . He was employed for whole day . In such circumstance it was necessary that the management should have given him regular status but he has been kept as casual for long 10years.

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 withboth . The intention of the legislature in enacting 25 T & 25 U is obvious . The legislature wanted that in case Casual and Badlis are engaged for a long period, it amounts to unfair labour practice . There is punitive clause for committing unfair labour practice.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that Vth Schedule of the ID Act specifies some practices as unfair labour practice . The Vth Scheudle clause 10 provides the criteria for ascertaining unfair labour practice. It is extracted as hereunder :--

"To employworkman as Badlis, Casual or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object ofdepriving them of the status and privilege ofa permanent workman."

Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule stipulates that in case the workmen are employed as Casuals, Badlis or Temporary and they are continued as such for years , it will amount to unfair labour practice . In the instant case the workman has been continued as casual and temporary for 7 years . It establishes to the hilt that the respondent management has committed unfair labour practice . The workman has been engaged for 7 years as casual and temporary and thereafter he has been removed . He has not been paid retrenchment compensation .

1579

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

It has submitted that Section 25 F, G, T, U and Clause 10 of the Vth Schedule of the ID Act have been deliberately violated.

The management has indiscriminately followed unfair labour practice in retaining the workman as casual for long 10 years and thereafter removing him even without payment of retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice . Thus the bank has committed unfair labour practice. This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 3

The workman has rendered 10 years of service and hehas been removed without payment of any retrenchment compensation in violation of Section 25 F of the ID Act .

Itwas submitted from the side of the bank that the workmanhas not been appointed as per recruitment rules. Hisappointment is irregular and illegal . He is not entitled to reinstatement .

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 .

Ithas been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case serviceof a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule is to 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 .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in the instant case Section 25 F, G of the ID Act is attracted. InSection 25 F of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workmanhas performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchemt compensation.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions of Section 25F are not complied. In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workman who has continuously worked for 10 years.

IntheConstitution Bench Judgement in Uma Devi's case these matters were not at issue . In case a workman has worked for 10 years and the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation. In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted . There is no cessation of his services . He is deemed continued in service in the eye of law . In case there is breach of Section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .

1580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )]

enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations .

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 25 F, U, TandClause 10 ofVth Schedule have been enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act, 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permittedto 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.

Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was notjustified, it may , by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fitor give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . According to this being provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annulled Section 11 A of the ID Act and the legislature has authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement . The judgement cited by the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 ( 4) Scale has putdown a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that employment can onlybe made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of opportunity is the hall mark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme .

A three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in 1993-II- LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also ofthedependents . So in case of illegal termination of service the workman should be reinstated .

Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgement has afforded a right according to which the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .

Reinstatement should not be misconceived as regularization . By the order of reinstatement the status quo ante of the workman is restored . He is given back wages in order to compensate him for his illegal dis - engagement . This is a special remedy provided in ID Act and it has not been annulled and set aside by any judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provisions of ID Act un- constitutional . The Government has got no license to make always appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time . Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the ruleofpublic employment. At the time ofmaking temporary appointments Articles 14, 16, 21, 23, 226 & 309 are infringed. There is no constitutional mandate that the government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee .

In case the workman is reinstated with back wages the respondents have every right, after payment of back wages and reinstatement, to retrench him validly following theprinciples of first come last go so that Section 25 , G & H of the ID Act are not violated .

The workman deserves reinstatement in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited above . This issue is decided accordingly .

ISSUE No. 4

It was submitted from the side of the workman that he has rendered 10 years dedicated service . He is out of employment. He should be reinstated with full back wages .

It was further submitted that payment of full back wages is not the natural consequence of the order of discharge or dismissal being set aside . It has been held in (2003) 6 SCC 141 that it is incumbent upon the labour court to decide the quantum of back wages . In the instant case the matter involved was a case of theft of large quantity of AluminumWire . Departmental inquiry was not conducted 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 resortingto the method of pick and choose policy and give temporary and adhoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constituiton will be given a go bye . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgement the provision of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared un- constitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions 1581 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

toget full back wages in view of his long tenure of service in view of law cited above . This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE No. 5

in accordance with the principles of natural justice so dismissal was found bad. In such circumstance the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the order for payment of full back wages was not justified if termination is set aside . InPGI Vs. Raj Kumar (2001 ) 2 SCC 54 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the 60% award of back wages of the Tribunal .

Ithasbeen further held in this case that payment of back wages having discretionary element involved it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case. No definite formula can be evolved.

From the foregoing it becomes quite obvious that theworkman has rendered 10 years of service as messenger . He has not been given benefits of regular appointees . In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman deserves to be reinstated with 100% back wages within twomonths from the date of publication of the award.

The reference is replied thus :-

Ithasbeenfurther held in this case that payment of backwages in its entirety is the statutory sanction. In(2003) 4 SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view ofdelay in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedings back wags need not be allowed. In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.

Theactionofthe management of the State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Parliament Street, in terminating the services of Shri Mohan Singh Bedi , Ex. Messenger , DPS Extension Counter, Mathura Road, New Delhi w.e.f. 1-6-2000 is not justified. The management is directed to reinstate the workman w.e.f. 1-6-2000 with 100 % back wages within two months from the date ofpublication of the award.

In 2004 VIII AD SC 444 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of reinstatement with 25% back wages .

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 19-2-2007

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च, 2007

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 circumstances 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 .

का.आ. 803. - जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधन और उनके कामगारों के बीच एक औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान है ;

InAIR. 2002 SC 1313 the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the back wages to 25%.

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि उक्त विवाद में राष्ट्रीय महत्व का प्रश्न शामिल है और इसका म्याय- निर्णयन एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए ;

In 2005 IV AD SC 39-three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reinstatement with full back wages is justified. In this case the workman has worked for more than 10 years and he has been retrenched without payment of compensation and pay in lieu of notice.

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 7 ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय के आदेश संख्या एल -22012/11 /2004 आई आर ( सी- II ) दिनांक 24-12-2004 द्वारा एक राष्ट्रीय न्यायधिकरण गठित किया था जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में था और न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया था तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप धारा ( 1 क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्याय- निर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को संदर्भित किया था ।

Itwas 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 IDAct, 1947 provides that in case dismissal or discharge is found illegal, reinstatement should be ordered. It has been held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule . The status provides for reinstatement . In certain exceptional cases where the undertaking has been closed down or it has become sick there may be order for payment ofcompensation.

और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी ने 3-5-2006 को उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार छोड़ दिया था ।

अतः , अब, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया जाता है जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में होगा तथा जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायमूर्ति श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा होंगे एवं उपर्युक्त विवाद In view of long 10 years sereice of the workman he is entitled to full back wages . He was engaged w.e.f. 16-06-1990. 17 years have elapsed . He has crossed his age for regular appointment . Though the full back wages are not the natural consequences of reinstatement but in the fact and circumstances of the case the workman is entitled 7991/ 07-10 1582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007 /PHALGUNA 26 , 1928

को न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निदेश के साथ संदर्भित किया जाता है कि न्यायमूर्ति श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा इस मामले में उस अवस्था से आगे कार्यवाही करेंगे जहां पर इसे न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी ने छोड़ा था और तदनुसार उसका निपटान करेंगे ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 11 /2004-आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

ORDER

New Delhi , the 6th March , 2007

S.Q. 803. Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the management of FCI and their workmen;

And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the above dispute involved a question of national importance and should be adjudicated by a National Industrial Tribunal ;

Andwhereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L - 22012/ 11 /2004 - IR (C- II ) dated 24-12-2004 with Headquarters at Kolkata and appointed Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( IA) of Section 10 of the said Act , referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication;

And whereas Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunai on 3-5-2006;

Now, therefore , a National Industrial Tribunal is constitutedwith Headquarters at Kolkata with Justice Shri C. P. Mishra as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri C. P. Mishra shall proceed in the matter from the stage at which it was left by Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji and dispose of the same accordingly.

[No. L. 22012/ 11 /2004- IR ( C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च, 2007

का आ. 804. जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधन और उनके कामगारों के बीच एक औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान है ;

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि उक्त विवाद में राष्ट्रीय महत्व का प्रश्न शामिल है और इसका न्याय - निर्णयन एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए;

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7 ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय के आदेश संख्या एल-22012/400/2003 आई आर ( सी- II ) दिनांक 17-12-2004 द्वारा एक राष्ट्रीय न्यायधिकरण गठित किया था जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में था और न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया था तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप धारा ( 1 क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्याय - निर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को संदर्भित किया था;

और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी ने 03-5-2006 को उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक प्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार छोड़ दिया था;

अतः , अब, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया जाता है जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में होगा तथा जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायमुर्ति श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा होंगे एवं उपर्युक्त विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निदेश के साथ संदर्भित किया जाता है कि न्यायमूर्ति श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा इस मामले में उस अवस्था से आगे कार्यवाही करेंगे जहां पर इसे न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी ने छोड़ा था और तदनुसार उसका निपटान करेंगे ।

[सं. एल-22012/400/2003- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

ORDER

New Delhi , the 6th March , 2007

S.O. 804. Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the management of FCI and thier workmen;

And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the above dispute involved a question of national importance and should be adjudicated by a National Industrial Tribunal ;

And whereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L- 22012/400/2003 - IR( C - II ) dated 17-12-2004 with headquarters at Kolkata and appointed Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1A) of Section 10 of the said Act , referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal foradjudication :

And whereas Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on 03-05-2006 ;

Now, therefore , a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Kolkata with Justice Shri C. P. Mishra as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri C. P. Mishra sha!! proceed in the matter from the stage 1583

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26, 1928

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

at which it was left by Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji and dispose of the same accordingly .

[No. L. 22012/400/2003 - IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 805.- जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधन और उनके कामगारों के बीच एक औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान है;

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है कि उक्त विवाद में राष्ट्रीय महत्व का प्रश्न शामिल है और इसका न्याय- निर्णयन एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक व्यायाधिकरण द्वारा किया जाना चाहिए;

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 7 ख द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्रम मंत्रालय के दिनांक 15-12-1998 के आदेश संख्या एल -22012/439/1995 आई आर ( सी- II ) द्वारा एक राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण गठित किया था जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में था और न्यायमूर्ति श्री ए, के. चक्रवर्ती को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया था तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप धारा ( 1 क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्याय- निर्णयन हेतु उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक'न्यायाधिकरण को संदर्भित किया था ।

और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री ए. के. चक्रवर्ती ने 31-12-1999 को उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार छोड़ दिया था;

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने दिनांक 14-3-2000 के आदेश द्वारा राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण को पुनर्गठित किया था तथा न्यायमूर्ति श्री बी. पी. शर्मा को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया था;

और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री बी.पी. शर्मा ने उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार 23-1-2003 को छोड़ दिया था;

और जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार ने दिनांक28-1-2004 के आदेश द्वारा राष्ट्रीय न्यायाधिकरण को पुनर्गठित किया था तथा न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी को इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त किया था;

और जबकि न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी ने दिनांक 03-05-2006 को उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का कार्यभार छोड़दिया था;

अतः , अब, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया जाता है जिसका मुख्यालय कोलकाता में होगा तथा जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायमूर्ति श्री सी.पी. मिश्रा होंगे एवं उपर्युक्त विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निदेश के साथ संदर्भित किया जाता है कि न्यायमूर्ति श्री सी. पी . मिश्रा इस मामले में उस अवस्था से आगे कार्यवाही करेंगे जहां पर इसे न्यायमूर्ति श्री हृषिकेश बनर्जी ने छोड़ा था और तदनुसार उसका निपटान करेंगे ।

[सं. एल-22012/439/1995- आई आर (सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

ORDER

New Delhi , the 6th March, 2007

S.O. 805. Whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the management of FCI and thier workmen;

And whereas the Central Government is of the opinion that the above dispute involved a question of national importance and should be adjudicated by a National Industrial Tribunal ;

Andwhereas the Central Government in exercise of thepowers conferred by Section 7 B of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14of1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L-22012/439 / 1995 - IR(C - II) dated 15-12-1998 with headquarters at Kolkata and appointed Justice Shri A. K. Chakraborty as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (1A) of Section 10 of the said Act, referred the said Industrial Dispute to the said National Industrial Tribunal foradjudication;

And whereas Justice Shri A. K. Chakraborty relinquished the charge of the above National Industrial Tribunal on 31-12-1999;

And whereas Central Government vide order dated 14-3-2002 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri B. P. Sharma as its Presiding Officer .

Andwhereas Justice Shri B. P. Sharma relinquished. the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on 23-1-2003;

And whereas Central Government vide order dated 28-1-2004 reconstituted the National Tribunal and appointed Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji as its Presiding Officer,

And whereas Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji relinquished the charge of the said National Industrial Tribunal on 03-05-2006;

Now, therefore , a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Kolkata with Justice Shri C. P. Mishra as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the above said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with a direction that Justice Shri C. P. Mishra shall proceed in the matter from the stage atwhich it was left by Justice Shri Hrishikesh Banerji and dispose of the same accordingly .

[No. L. 22012/439 /1995- IR (C- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 1584

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17, 2007 /PHALGUNA 26, 1928

नईदिल्ली , 9 मार्च , 2007

226

Gurdaspur

Azizpur

Pathankot

Kuther 375

Gurdaspur

Pathankot

Akhwana 352

Gurdaspur

Pathankot

[No. S-38013 /08/2007 -S.S.I]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 9 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 806.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा 16 मार्च, 2007 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय-5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77,78,79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध पंजाब राज्यके निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्,

तहसील जिला

क्र.स.

हदबस्त संख्या

राजस्व ग्राम का नाम

352

जी. एच.ओ.

पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

349

गुरदासपुर

कोहनपुर

पठानकोट

352

3. हीड़

पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

354

4. चाचेली

गुरदासपुर

पठानकोट

का.आ. 807.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 16 मार्च , 2007 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77,78,79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्, 356

5. रानीपुर

पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

राजस्व ग्राम

होबली

जिला

क्र.स.

तालुक

भंवाल

227

गुरदासपुर

पठानकोट

226

अज़ीजपुर

पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

का नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएं

375

कुठेर

गुरदासपुर

पठानकोट

1 2

352

5 9.

अखवाना

गुरदासपुर

पठानकोट

अनेकल

बेंगलूर

सरजापुरा

[संख्या एस-38013/08/2007- एस.एस -1 ] एस. दो. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

अनेकल

सरजापुरा

बेंगलूर

2. बिल्लापुरा

अनेकल बेंगलूर

बुरगुंटे

सरजापुरा

New Delhi , the 9th March, 2007

4. अनेकल

कसाबा अनेकल बेंगलूर

जिगनी अनेकल

5. कल्लूबालु

बेंगलूर

अनेकल बेंगलूर

कसाबा

सुरगजक्कनहल्ली

कसाबा

कमसांद्रा अग्रहारा

अनेकल बेंगलूर

अनेकल

जिगनी

कावल होसाहल्ली

बेंगलूर

जिगनी

कैलासनहल्ली

अनेकल

बेंगलूर S.O. 806. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 16th March, 2007 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter -Vand VI ( except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of PUNJAB namely :-

जिगनी अनेकल

10. यारदनहल्ली

बेंगलूर Tehsil District

Sl . No.

अत्तिबेले अनेकल

11. यादवनहल्ली

बेंगलूर Had Bast No.

Name of the Village

12.

अनेकल बेंगलूर

सरजापुरा

चिक्कनागमंगला

352

GHO

Pathankot Gurdaspur

13.

बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर

करिओबनहल्ली यशवंतपुर

2. Kahanpur 349 Pathankot Gurdaspur

14. सिगेहल्ली यशवंतपुर बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर 3.

352

Helerh

Pathankot Gurdaspur

कडाबगेरे

15.

दासनपुरा बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर 4. Chachelli 354

Gurdaspur

Pathankot

नागदेवनहल्ली केंगेरी16.

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर 356

Gurdaspur

Pathankot

5. Ranipur

17.

Bhanwal 227 Pathankot Gurdaspur

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

वसंतपुर

उत्तरहल्ली 1585

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17, 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

5 2

अरेहल्ली

18.

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

उत्तरहल्ली

अगारा

19.

बेंगलूर

बेगूर बेंगलूर दक्षिण 20.

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

बेगूर

ऐबूर

21.

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

उत्तरहल्ली

बिकासीपुरा

22. गनेकल

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

उत्तरहल्ली

23. चेनेन्नाहल्ली उत्तरहल्ली बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर 24. चेन्नासांद्रा

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

उत्तरहल्ली

25. वज्रहल्ली

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

उत्तरहल्ली

26. तालघ‌ट्टापुरा उत्तरहल्ली बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर 27.

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

यशवंतपुर

28. सिद्दहल्ली

बेंगलूर दक्षिण बेंगलूर

यशवंतपुर

कंगेरी

29. ज्ञानज्योति नगर

बेंगलूर

बेंगलूर दक्षिण 30. सोनप्पन हल्ली चिक्कजाला बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर 31.

बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर

चिक्कजाला

अनंतपुर

32. मैलप्पन हल्ली हेसरघट्ट बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर 33.

हैसरघट्ट बेंगलूर उत्तर बेंगलूर अडगान हल्ली

34.

के. आर. पुरम बेंगलूर पूर्व बेंगलूर होरमावु

35. कुंदला हल्ली के. आर. पुरम बेंगलूर पूर्व बेंगलूर 36. मारत हल्ली वर्तुर बेंगलूर पूर्व बेंगलूर 37. तबर हल्ली वर्तुर

बेंगलूर

बेंगलूर पूर्व 38.

वर्तुर

रामगोंडन हल्ली

बेंगलूर पूर्व बेंगलूर 39.

वर्तुर बेंगलूर पूर्व बेंगलूर मुन्नेकोलाल

वर्तुर

40. सिद्दापुर

बेंगलूर पूर्व बेंगलूर 41.

बेंगलूर

बेंगलूर पूर्व 'मिट्टिगान हल्ली बिदर हल्ली

42. बसवनहल्ली कसाबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 43. मैलानहल्ली कसाबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 44. कन्नेगौडनहल्ली कसाबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 45.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण हैडालू गाँव कसाबा

46.

कसांबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण अर्जुनबेटहल्ली

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

47. बैरसेट्‌टीहल्ली

48.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

गुट्टपाल्या

49.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

कुलुवनहल्ली

50.

नेलमंगला

कसाबा

बेंगलूर ग्रामीण तिप्पगोंडेनहल्ली

51.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

टेप्पर बेगूर

52.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

सोंपुर

हनुमंतपुरा

येडीहल्ली

53.

सोंपुर नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 54.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण दाबसपेट के. आई. सोंपुर ए.डी.बी

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

55. दोड्डेरी

गंगाधरपाल्या

56.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

बयरनहल्ली

नेलमंगला

57.

बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

58.

बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा नेलमंगलो

बुदीहाल

बॉम्मनहल्ली

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 59.

कसाबा

कैंचनहल्ली

60.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

:61 .

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण विश्वेवपुरा कसाबा

62. देगनहल्ली

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

भावीकेरे

63.

कसाबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण मल्लरबेनेवाडी

64.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

कसाबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण कैंपेनलिंगनहल्ली

65.

येंटगानहल्ली

66.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

बिन्नमंगला

67.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

68. दानोजीपाल्या कसाबा नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 69.

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

कसाबा

तोणचिनकुप्पा

नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण 70.

कसाबा

हनुमनपाल्या

71.

दासनपुर नेलमंगला बेंगलूर ग्रामीण चिक्कगोल्लरहट्टी

72.

बेंगलूर ग्रामीण

'नेलमंगला

कसाबा

नागशेट्टीहल्ली

बेल्लारी 73.

रूपनवाडी बेल्लारी

टी. बूदीहालं

बेल्लारी बेल्लारी सिरूवारा

बेल्लारी

74.

बेल्लारी

75. वेणीवीरापुर

बेल्लारी

बेल्लारी बेल्लारी

76. बी. गोनेहालु

[ संख्या एस-38013/09/2007-एस.एस.1 ] एस. दो. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th March, 2007

S.O. 807. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 16th March, 2007 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- Vand VI (except sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely:

1586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 17 , 2007/PHALGUNA 26, 1928

Hobli

Taluk

S1 . Name of

District No. the Revenue Villageor Municipal Limits

1 2

Anekal

Sarjapura

Bangalore 1. Sarjapura

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

5 27. Chikkasandra Yeshwantpur

North Bangalore Bangalore 28. Siddahalli

Yeshwantpur

Bangalore

Bangalore North

Kengeri

Bangalore

Bangalore South

29. Gana Jyothi

Nagar

Anekal

Sarjapura

Bangalore 2. Billapura

Chikkajala

Bangalore 30. Sonappanna Halli

Anekal

3. Buragunte

Bangalore

Sarjapura

Bangalore North

31. Ananthapura

4. Anekal

Kasaba

Anekal Bangalore

Anekal

5. Kallubalo

Jigani

Bangalore

Chikkajala

Bangalore

Bangalore North

32. Mylappanahalli

Kasaba

Anekal Bangalore 6. Suragajak- kanahalli

Hesaraghatta

Bangalore

Bangalore North

33. Adaganhalli

Kasaba

Anekal Bangalore 7. Kammasandra Agrahara

Anekal

Jigani

Bangalore 8. Kaval Hosahalli

Anekal

9. Kylasanahalli Jigani

Bangalore

Anekal

10. Yarandahalli Jigani

Bangalore

Attibele

Anekal

11. Yadavanahalli

Bangalore

Anekal

Bangalore

Sarjapura

12. Chikkanaga- mangala

13. Kariobanahalli Yeshwantpur

Bangalore

Hesaraghatta

Bangalore

Bangalore North

34. Horamavu

K. R. Puram Bangalore Bangalore East

35. Kundalahalli K.R. Puram

Bangalore

Bangalore East

36. Marathahalli Varthur

Bangalore

Bangalore East

37. Tabarahalli

Varthur

Bangalore

Bangalore East

Varthur

Bangalore 38. Ramagonda- nahalli

Bangalore North

14. Seegehalli

Bangalore

Yeshwantpur Bangalore North

15. Kadabagere Dasanapura

Bangalore

Bangalore North

Bangalore East

Varthur

39. Munnekolala

Bangalore

Bangalore East

Varthur

40. Siddapura

Bangalore

Bangalore East

Bidarahalli

41. Mittiganahalli

16.

Kangeri

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Bangalore

Bangalore East

Kasaba

42. Basavanahalli

Nagadevan- halli !

Uttarahalli

17. Vasanthapura

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

43.

Mylanahalli

Uttarahalli

18. Arehalli

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba Nelamangala 44. Kannegowdana- halli

Begur

19. Agara

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Bangalore Rural

Kasaba Nelamangala 45. Hydalu Village

20. Ibur

Bgur

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

46. Arjunabettahalli

Uttarahalli

21. Bikasipura

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural 47. Byrashettyhalli

22. Ganakal

Uttarahalli

Bangalore

Kasaba Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

48. Guttepalya

Bangalore South

Uttarahalli

23. Channenahalli

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Uttarahalli

24. Channasandra

Bangalore

Bangalore South

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

49. Kuluvanahalli

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba Nelamangala 50. Thippagondana- halli

Uttarahalli

25. Vajrahalli

Bangalore

Bangalore Rural 51. Theppada Begur

Bangalore South

Uttarahalli

Bangalore

Bangalore South

26. Talaghatta- pura

Kasaba Nelamangala Bangalore Rural 52. Hanumanthapura Somapura Nelamangala Bangalore Rural [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

53. Yedehalli

Somapura Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Somapura Nelamangala.Bangalore Rural 54. Dobaspet, KIADB , I/ A

Kasaba

55. Dodderi

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural Gangadharpalya Kasaba

56.

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

57. Byranahalli

Nelamangala Bangalore Rúral 58. Budihalli

Kasaba Nelamar gala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

59. Bommanahalli

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

60. Kenchanahalli

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

61. Visweswapura

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

Deganahalli

62.

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

63. Bhavikere

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

64. Mallarabenewadi

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

1587

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 17 , 2007/फाल्गुन 26 , 1928

Kasaba Nelamangala Bangalore Rural 65. Kempalingana- halli

Kasaba

66. Yenteganahalli

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

Binnamangala

67.

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Kasaba

68. Danojipalya

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural Thonachinakuppa Kasaba

69.

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural Hanumanapalya Kasaba

70.

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural Chikkagollarhatti Dasanapura

71.

Nelamangala Bangalore Rural 72. Nagashettyhalli Kasaba Nelamangala Bangalore Rural

Bellary 73. T. Boodihal Rupanwadi Bellary

Moka

74. Siruvara

Belary Bellary

Bellary

75. Veni Veerapur

Bellary 76. B. Gonehalu

Bellary

[No. S - 38013 / 09/2007 - S.S.I ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi- 110054 .