This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 12] नई दिल्ली , मार्च 18 - मार्च 24, 2007 , शनिवार/फाल्गुन 27, 1928 03 ; 1929 No. 12] NEW DELHI , MARCH 18-MARCH 24, 2007 , SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 27 , 1928 CHAITRA 03/1929 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके SeparatePaging isgiven to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

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

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

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय :

( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

तथा उसी संभ्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किसी अन्य अपराध का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिक का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण झारखंड राज्य पर करती है ।

नई दिल्ली, 9 मार्च, 2007

[सं 228/15/2007-ए.बी.डी.- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel & Train

New Delhi , the 9th March , 2007 का.आ. 808 - केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वास दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ रठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 6 श्रीश्री भाई-1004/2007- रांची दिनांक 07-03-2007 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमतिसे पुलिस स्टेशन- घाटशिला में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 302, 307, 379, 353 , 427, 435/34, आयुध अधिनियम की धारा 27 और सीएलए एक्ट की धारा 17. ( i ) ( 11 ) के अन्तर्गत जिला-पूर्वी सिंहभूम ( जमशेदपुर ) , पुलिस स्टेशन घाटशिला में जमशेदपुर संसदीय क्षेत्र से जे. एम. एम. के सांसद श्री सुनील कुमार महतो तथा अन्यों की हत्या से संबंधित अपराध सं. 0028/07 दिनांक 05/03/2007 सहित उक्तमामलों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न , दुष्प्रेषण और षडयंत्र

S.O. 808. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No, 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent ofthe State Government of Jharkhand, Home Department vide 816.G1/2007

(1589) 1590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

Notification No. 6/0 B1-1004/2007 - Ranchi dated 07-03-2007 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Jharkhand for investigation in Crime No.0028/07 dated 05-03-2007 under Sections 302, 307, 379, 353, 427, 435 , 34 IPC, Section 27 Arms Act and Section 17 (i) ( ii ) CLA Act. PS Ghatshila regarding the murder of Shri Sunil Kumar Mahto , J.M.M. , M.P. from Jamshedpur Parliamentary constituency and others in the District of East Singhbhum ( Jamshedpur) , PS Ghatshila including abetment , attempt and conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offence committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts ,

[No , 228/ 15 /2007- AVD -II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय ( राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क तथा सीमा शुल्क के मुख्य आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) पुणे, 31 जनवरी , 2007 सं. 02/2007-सीमा शुल्क

का.आ.809 - भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 01-07-1994 को जारी अधिसूचना संख्या-33/94-सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टैरिफ ) द्वारा मुझे प्रदत्त. अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए में. गोवा राज्य में, तालुका क्वेपम के ग्राम " शेल्वोना " को वेयरहाउम विनियम 1966 में दी गई निर्माण तथा अन्य गतिविधियों के लिए , सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 9 के अधीन वेयरहाउसिंग स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ । [ फा. सं. VIII/48-76/मु.आ.का. पुणे क्षेत्र/06 ]

आर. शर्मा , मुख्य आयुक्त MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)

(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS) Pune . the 31st January , 2007 No. 02/2007-Cus

S.O. 809. In exercise of the powers conferred on me by Notification No. 33/94 - Cus (NT) , dtd . 1-7-94 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi . I hereby declare Village ' Shelvona ' (Xelvona), Taluka Quepem, Goa in the State of Goa to be a

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] Warehousing Station , under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 ( 52 of 1962 ) , for Manufacture and Other Activities under Warehouse Regulations , 1966.

[ F. No. VIII /48-76/CCU/PZ/06] R. SHARMA , Chief Commissioner कार्यालय आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय , द्वितीय जयपुर, 8 मार्च, 2007 सं. 01 -सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) 2007

का.आ. 810. - सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( ए ) के तहत भारत सरकार वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33 / 94- सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) दिनांक प्रथम जुलाई , 1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं बी. एस. वी. मूर्ति, आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, जयपुर- द्वितीय एतद्द्वारा , शतप्रतिशत निर्यात संवर्धन इकाई स्थापित करने के उद्देश्य से सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम 1962 की धारा 9 के अन्तर्गत राजस्थान राज्य में भीलवाडा को भण्डारण स्टेशन ( वेयरहाउसिंग स्टेशन ) घोषित करता हूँ ।

[फा. सं. पंचम (ईओयू) 30/जेपी- II/05/2007 ] बी. एस. वी. मूर्ति, आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE- II

Jaipur , the 8th March , 2007 No. 01-CUS ( NT) 2007

S.O. 810. In exercise of the powers conferred by Notification No. 33/94 - Customs ( NT) dated the 1st July, 1994 , of the Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi , issued under clause (a) ofSection 152 of Customs Act , 1962, I , B.S.V. Murthy, Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur - II , hereby declare Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan to be warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 for the purpose of setting up 100 % FOU .

[ F. No. V. (EOU) 30 /JP- II/05/2007] B. S. V. MURTHY, Commissioner ( आथिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 8 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 811.-प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 21 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , भारत सरकार , वित्त मंत्रालय , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

1591

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सी.पी.वी. डिवीजन)

पूर्ववर्ती राजस्व एवं बैंकिंग विभाग ( बैंकिंग विंग ) 9 मार्च , 1977 को भारत के असाधारण राजपत्र, भाग II खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) में दिनांक 7 मार्च , 1977 के. का. आ. सं. 220( अ) के तहत प्रकाशित अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है :

नई दिल्ली, 27 दिसम्बर , 2006

उपर्युक्त अधिसूचना में " जिला रामनाथपुरम , तिरुनेल्वेली, विरुधुनगर, शिवागंगाई, तूतीकोरीन, मदुरई, पुडुकोट्टई, एवं डिंडिगल " शब्दों के स्थान पर " जिला विरुधुनगर , शिवागंगाई , रामनाथपुरम , तिरुनेल्वेली , तुतीकोरिन , मदुरई, पुडुकोट्टई, डिंडिगल एवं कन्याकुमारी " शब्द प्रतिस्थापित किए जाएंगे ।

i [फा. सं. 7/11 /2006- आरआरबी]

का. आ. 812.- राजमविक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक (क ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा भारत का उच्चायोग , इस्लामाबाद में श्री श्याम कुमार सन्ह, श्री राखीव रंजन , श्रीमति अनीता कुमारी , उच्च श्रेणी लिपिक तथा श्रीः राज कुमारीसिंह, निम्न श्रेणी लिपिक को दिनांक 27-12-2006 के सावक कौसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

एम. के. मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव

[सं.टी-4330/01 /2006] टिप्पणी: मूल अधिसूचना दिनांक 7 मार्च, 1977 के का.आ..

प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव ( कौंसुलर)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi , the 27th December , 2006 220( अ) के तहत भारत के राजमत्र में प्रकाशित की.. गई थी और तत्पश्चात् 23 सितम्बर, 1985 के का. आ. 4825 , 12 फरवरी , 1999 के का.आ. 521 तथा 1 सितम्बर, 2004 के का. आ. 2255 के तहत भारत के राजपत्र भाग II खंड 3 उपखंड ( ii ) में संशोधित की गई ।

(Department of Economic Affairs)

(Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 8th March , 2007

S. O. 812.In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers(Onths and Fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri Shyam Kumar Saka ,UDC, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, UDC, Smt. Anita Kumari , UDC and Shri Raj Kumar Singh , LDC in the High Commission of India , Islamabad to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer with effect from27th December ,2006.

[No. T-4330/01 /2006]

PRITAM LAL, Under Secy. (Consular )

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2006

S. O. 811. In exercise of the powers conferred.by Sub-section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), the Central Government hereby makes the following fürther amendment in the Notification oftheGovernment of India , in the Ministry of Finance, in the erstwhileDepartment of Revenue and Banking (Banking Wing) Number S. O. 220 (E) dated the 7th March , 1977 published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 Sub- section ( ii) dated the 9th March , 197 namely :

का. आ. 813 , -राजनयिक कौसली अधिकारी (शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक. (क) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का कौसलावास में श्री हरपाल सिंह सहायक को 28-12-2006 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है । ,

In the said notification for the words " district of Ramanathpuram, Tirunelveli , Virudhunagar, Sivagangai , Tuticorin, Madurai , Pudukottai and Dindigul ", the words "districts of Virudhunagar , Sivagangai , Ramanathapuram, Tirunelveli, Turicorin, Madurai , Pudukottai , Dindigul and Kanyakumari " shall be substiuted.

[सं. टी-4330/01/2006] [F. No. 7/11 /2006-RRB]

M. K. MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव (कौंसुलर)

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2006 Note: The Principal notification was published vide S.O.220 (E ) dated the 7th March , 1977 and subsequently amended by notification( s) S. O.4825 dated 23rd September, 1985, S. O. 521 dated 12th February, 1999 and S. O. 2255 dated 1st September, 2004 in the Gazette of India Part II, Section 3 Sub- section(ii). い

S. O. 813. In pursuance of the clause (a) of the section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] 1592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

नई दिल्ली , 15 फरवरी , 2007

hereby authorise Shri Harpal Singh , Assistant in the Consulate General of India , Saint Petersburg to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 28th December , 2006.

का. आ. 816. - राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक (क) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावास, कम्पाला में श्री एम. श्रीनिवासुलु , सहायक को 15-02-2007 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है । [No. T-4330/01/2006] PRITAM LAL, Under Secy . (Consular ) नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2006

[ सं. टी -4330/01/2007 ]

प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव ( कौंसुलर )

New Delhi , the 15th February , 2007 का. आ. 814.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक (क) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का कौसलावास , बर्मिंघम में श्री तारा चन्द, सहायक को 29-12-2006 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

S. O. 816. In pursuance of clause (a ) of Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees ) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri M. Srinivasulu , Assistant in the High Commission of India, Kampala to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 15th February, 2007.

[सं. टी-4330/01 / 2006 ] प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव ( कौंसुलर ) New Delhi , the 29th December, 2006

[No. T-4330/01/2007] PRITAM. LAL, Under Secy. ( Consular)

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 26 फरवरी , 2007

S. O. 814. in pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and Fees) Act , 1948 ( 41 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri Tara Chand , Assistant in the Consulate General of India, Birmingham to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 29th December, 2006.

[No. T-4330/01 /2006] PRITAM LAL, Under Secy . (Consular) नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2006

का.आ. 817. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 08-01-2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में और चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कोलकाता सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में श्रीमती मलांचा घोष , 338 , जोधपुर पार्क , कोलकाता-700068 को नियुक्त करती है ।

का. आ. 815. - राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक (क) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावास , बगदाद में श्री वी. के. सुरेश , सहायक को29-12-2006 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

?

[सं. टी-4330/01 /2006 ]

[फा. सं. 809/ 1/2006- एफ ( सी ) ] संगीता सिंह , निदेशक ( फिल्म) प्रीतम लाल , अवर सचिव ( कौंसुलर )

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 29th December , 2006

New Delhi , the 26h February, 2007 S. O. 815. In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 ofthe Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and Fees ) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri V. K. Suresh , Assistant in the Embassy of India, Baghdad to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 29th December , 2006.

[No. T-4330/01 /2006]

PRITAM LAL, Under Secy. (Consular )

S. O. 817. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 8-1-2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 ( 37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematoraph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Smt. Malancha Ghosh , 338 , Jodhpur Park , Kolkata- 700068 as member of the Kolkata Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

1993

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

Certification with immediate affect for a period of two years.. or until further orders, whichever is carlier.

[F. No. 809/1/2006-F(C) ]

SANGEETA SINGH, Director (Films)

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 818. डॉ. केतन धीरज लाल देसाई को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 की धारा 3 ( 1 ) ( ख ) में निहित उपबंधों के अनुसार अन्नामलाई 'विश्वविद्यालय और गुजरात विश्वविद्यालय की सीनेटों द्वारा तथा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 की धारा 3 ( 1 ) ( ग ) के अन्तर्गत बिहित उपबंध के अनुसार गुजरात राज्य के पंजीकृत चिकित्सा स्नातक निर्वाचम क्षेत्र से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करने हेतु निर्वाचित किया गया था ।

परिषद के अध्यक्ष पद से हटाया गया था । जहाँ तक भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद की सदस्यता का संबंध हैं , वे नए चुनाव किए जाने तक एमसीआई के सदस्य बने रहे तथा उन्हें तीन विभिन्न स्थानों से निर्वाचित बतलाया जाता है ।है । दूसदूसरे, केनकैन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो कार्यकरण की जांच कर रहा था और डा. केतन देसाई छान - बीग/जांच- पड़ताल में शामिल हुए वारिसों में से एक व्यक्ति है और केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण यूरो ने एक निस्सार रिपोर्ट फाइल की है जिसे सक्षम क्षेत्राधिकार के म्वायालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किया गया है । डॉ. केतन देसाई, जैसा कि पहले ही देखा जा चुका है , ने अधिसूचना के जारी होने के अध्यधीन अपने विकल्प काप्रयोग किया है । उनके द्वारा परिणामी रूप से रिक्तं किए गए दोनो स्थानों में नए चुनाव कराए जाने होंगे और इस तरह निर्वाचित व्यक्तियों का भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में प्रतिनिधित्व होगा । इस तरह यह वांछनीय है कि भारत संघ को ऐसी अधिसूचना अतिशीघ्र जारी करने तथा शेषः दोनों निकायों को अपनी चुनाव प्रक्रिया पूरी करने के लिए सूचित करने तथा 28 मार्च, 2007 तक निर्वाचित सदस्यों के नाम प्रस्तुत करने का निदेश हुआ है जिससे कि भारत संघः 31 मार्च, 2007 को या इससे पहले अधिसूचना जारी करने में समर्थ होसके..... 3.

दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय में दायर सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या -23557/05 - डॉ. गिरीश त्यागी बन्क्षम भारत संघ, में माननीय न्यायालय ने अन्य बातों के साथ - साथ डॉ. केतन देसाई के बारे में अधिसूचना जारी करने पर विचार- विमर्श किया और दिनांक 01-03-2007 और 06-03-2007 को आदेश पारित किए । दिनांक 06-03-2007 के आदेश में निहित संगत उद्धरण नीचे दिए गए हैं :

हमः यह स्पष्ट करते हैं कि इस आदेश में निहित निर्देश पक्षकारों के अधिकारों के प्रति पूर्वाग्रह के बगैर हैं ।"

i

अतः अब 'सीडब्ल्यूपी सं. 23557/05 गिरिश त्यागी बमागः भारत संघ और अभ्य में दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के दिनांक 06-03-2007 के आदेशों तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ग ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की विनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 138 में निम्मलिखित और संशोधनः करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के 2005 (ग ) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत क्रम सं. 14 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी :-

आरऐमजौं, गुजरात

" 14. डॉ. केतन डी. देसाई 4/ए, वशिष्ठ अर्पाटमेंट मेंट पालीक्लिनिकः कालेज के सामने अंबावाडी, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात, पिन-380015 "

यह अधिसूचना उपर्युक्त रिट याचिका में दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के गिनांक 6-3-2007 के आदेश में यथानिर्दिष्ट पक्षकारों के अधिकारों के प्रति पूर्वाग्रह के बिना जारी की एाई है । ::

برق

" हमारे पूर्व आदेश के क्रम में हम यहां यह भी देखते हैं कि डॉ. केतन देसाई न्यायालय में मौजूद हैं और उन्होंने बताया है कि वे अपना विकल्प धारा 3 ( 1 ) ( ग ) , पंजीकृत चिकित्सा स्नातक, गुजरात के अधीन देते हैं और वे अन्य दो जगहों जहां से उन्हें अधिसूचना के आधार पर निर्वाचित किया गया है , को छोड़ते हैं । श्री के. वी.एस. राव , उप सचिव , और स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय के अनुदेशों पर भारत संघ के लिए पेश विद्वान काउंसल निवेदन करता है कि इस तथ्य के बावजूद कि डा. केतन देसाई को तीन विभिन्न निर्वाचन क्षेत्रों/विश्वविद्यालयों/ राज्यों से निर्वाचित किया गया है , उनके संबंध में अधिसूचना जारी करने के बारे में कुछ आपत्तियां हैं । इस आधार को ध्यान में रखते हुए इमने इस मामले पर विचार करने हेतु उन्हें अपने दिनांक 1 मार्च , 2007 के आदेश के तहत और समय दिया था लेकिन आज पुनः उनसे और समय के लिए अनुरोध आया है। हमें समझते हैं कि यह अनुरोध अनौचित्यपूर्ण है । सभी संबंधित प्राधिकारियों को इस न्यायालय द्वारा निदेश दिया गया है कि वे 31 मार्च , 2007 तक भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के लिए समस्त प्रक्रिया को पूरा करें जिससे पहले भारत संघ को भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम के उपबंधोंके अनुसरण में निर्वाचित सदस्यों के लिए अधिसूचनाएं जारी करनी होंगी । हमारे सामने यह विवाद नहीं है कि एक रिट याचिका पर इस न्यायालय द्वारा निर्णय किया गया जिसमें डॉ. केतन देसाई को बदनाम किए बगैर भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान

[सं. वी-11013/2/2006- एमई( पी-1 ) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव 1594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE members by 28th March , 2007 to enable the UOI to issue notification on or before 31 st March , 2007..

New Dellhi , the 9th March , 2007

Wemake it clear that the directions contained in this order are without prejudice to the rights of the parties .

S.O. 818.-Whereas Dr. Ketan Dhirajlal Desai was elected by Senates of Annamalai University and Gujarat University as per provisions contained in Section 3 (1 ) (b) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and also from RegisteredMedical Graduates ( RMG) Constituency of State ofGujarat as per provision contained under Section 3(1)( c) ofthe IMCAct, 1956 for appointment as Member ofMedical Council of India.

Now, therefore , in pursuance of orders dated 06-03-2007 of Delhi High Court in the CWP No. 23557/05, Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India and Others and the provision of clause (c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , the Central Govemment hereby makes following further amendments in the Notification of the Govemment of India in the then Ministry of Health number S.O. 138 dated the 9th January, 1960 , namely:

In the said Notification , under the heading, "Elected under clause ( c ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 " , against serial number 14, the following entries shall be substituted, namely:-

Whereas in the CWP No. 23557/05 - Dr. Girish Tyagi Versus Union of India filed in Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble Court deliberated inter alia on the issue of the notification inrespect of Dr. Ketan Desai and passed orders on 01-03- 2007 and 06-03-2007. The relevant extracts contained in the order dated 06-03-2007 are reproduced below :---

" 14. Dr. Ketan . D. Desai

RMG , Gujarat

4/A, Vasishta Apartment Opposite Polytechnic College , Ambawadi , Ahmedabad , Gujarat, PIN - 380015 "

This notification is made without prejudice to the rights of the parties as indicated in the Delhi High Court order dated 6-3-2007 in the above mentioned writ petition.

[No. V- 11013/2/2006 - ME ( P - 1) ] T.J.S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

( स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 819.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में डा. महिसेकर दिलीप गोविंदराव , संकाय सदस्य, कायचिकित्सा , स्वामी रामानंद तीरथ मराठवाड़ा विश्वविद्यालय को स्वामी रामानंद तीरथ मराठवाड़ा विश्वविद्यालय , नांदेड़ के सीनेट द्वारा भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

जबकि माननीय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने गिरीश त्यागी बनाम भारत संघ के मामले में रिट याचिका ( सिविल ) 23557/05 में 01-03-2007 को दिए गए अपने आदेश में निर्देश दिया है कि सक्षम न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार द्वारा पारित आदेशों के अध्ययधीन , 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 स्वास्थ्य विश्वविद्यालय से सम्बद्ध किया गया हो ।

"In continuation to our previous order , we may also notice here that Dr. Ketan Desai is present in Court and has stated that he exercises his choice under Section 3( 1) ( c) , RMG, Gujarat and is prepared to give up the other two places from where he has been elected upon notification . Learned Counsel appearing for UOI upon instructions from Mr. K. V. S. Rao , Deputy Secretary, and Ministry of Health & Family submits that the UOI has certain reservations about issuance of notification in relation to Dr. Ketan Desai despite the fact that he has been elected from three different constituencies/universities / states . Keeping in view this stand, we had granted them further time vide our order dated 1st March , 2007 to consider the matter but today againthere is a request for further time . We find the request to be unjustified. All concerned authorities have been directed by this court to complete the entire election process to MCI by 31st March , 2007 before which the UOI has to issue notifications for the elected members in accordance with the provisions of the MCI Act . It is not disputed before us that a writ petition was decided by this court wherein Dr. Ketan Desai was removed from being a President of the MCI though without casting any as persion on him . As far as membership of the MCI was concerned , he continued to be member of the MCI till fresh elections were held and he is stated to be elected from three different places. Secondly, CBI was looking into the functioning and Dr. Ketan Desai was one of the persons involved in the inquiry/ investigation and the CBI has filed a cancellation report which has been accepted by the court of competent jurisdiction. Dr. Ketan Desaj , as already noticed , has exercised his choice subject to issuance of notification . In the two places resultantly vacated by him , fresh elections would have to be conducted and persons so elected, would represent in the MCI . Thus , it is desirable that the UOI is directed to issue such a notification at the earliest and inform the remaining two bodies to complete their election process and submit the names of the elected [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1595

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24 , 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

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 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 ofthese 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 elapsedby the operation of the notification vide which the said medical colleges are affiliated to the concerned Health University in the respective States , 1 अतः , अब , सिविल रिट याचिका संख्या 23557/2005-डॉ. 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:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उप- धास ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत क्रम सं. 23 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी अर्थात्:-

Whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was also informed that on behalf ofthe Union ofIndia, SpecialLeave 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,

"23. डॉ. महिसेकर दिलीप गोविंदराव स्वामी रामानंद तीरथ

कैलाश नगर,

मराठवाड़ा विश्वविद्यालय,

नांदेड"

नांदेड , महाराष्ट्र

पिन-431602

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 :-

In the said Notification , under the heading, ed under clause (b) ofsub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 3", against serial number 23 , the following entries shall be substituted, namely :-

"23. Dr. Mhaisekar Declip

यह अधिसूचना और भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद में सदस्य रूप में डा. मष्हिसेकर दिलीप गोविंदराव का बना रहना विशेत्र अनुमकि 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 अधिनियम, 1998. के अनुसरण में महाराष्ट्र यूनिवर्सिटी आफ साइसिंज , नासिक से स्वामी रामानंद तीरथ मराठवाड़ा विश्वविद्यालय के अंतर्गत मेडिकल कालेजों की संबद्धता का हस्तांतरण नहीं हो जता , जो भी पहले हो , के अध्ययधीन होगा ।

Govindrao,

Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathawada University, Nanded."

KailashNagar,

[सं. ची-11013/3/2006-एम ई( भीति-1 ) ]

Nanded, Maharashtra

Pin-431602

टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव

(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare)

New Delhi , the 9th March, 2007.

This notification and continuation of Dr. Mhaischkar Deelip Govindrao as member in 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 Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathawada University to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nasik, in accordance with the MUHS Act, 1998, whichever is earlier,

[No. V-11013/3 /2006- ME (Policy- I)) S.O. 819. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub - section (1) (b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956 (102 of 1956) Dr. Mhaisekar Deelip Góvindrao, member of the faculty ofMedicine, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathawada University has been elected by the Senate of the Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathawada University, Nanded, tobe a member of the Medical Council of India .

T.J.S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वित्तरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 820.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स प्रिसाइज टेक्नो सिस्टम , 2 , दूसरा तल , रावी चेम्बर, जी पी ओ रिलिफ रोड के पास , अहमदाबाद -380 001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " वी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वोलेक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07/26 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रां. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम, निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/ परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (03 )/2007 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1597

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 820. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is în conformitywith the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self- indicating, non -automatic , ( Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " VW " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " VOLEX" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Precise Techno System , 2, 2nd Floor , Ravi Chamber, Near G.P.O. Relief Road, Ahmedabad- 380 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/26;

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and upto 5000kg and with number of verification scale- interval (n) in the rage of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5× 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM -21 (03 )/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology. 816G1/07-2 1598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 821.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो. गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृत्ति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स प्रिसाइज टेक्नो सिस्टम , 2 , दूसरा तल , रावी चेम्बर , जी पी ओ रिलिफ रोड के पास , अहमदाबाद-380 001 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " वी जे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वोलेक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07 / 25 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण -पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान । ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बेचने से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तन/ परिवर्धन नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यहाँ घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिये 100 से 50000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिये 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 %. 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 % , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 03 )/2007 ]

आर. माधुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1599 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

New Delhi , the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 821.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type ) with digital indication of " VJ " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) and with brand name " VOLEX " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Precise Techno System, 2, 2nd Floor, Ravi Chamber , Near G.P.O. Relief Road, Ahmedabad-380 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/25.

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 22 kg and minimum capacity of 50g . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 1g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50 mg and with number of verifiaftion scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 ; 2×10 or 5×10 , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21(03)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 822. - केन्द्रीय सरकारे का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स प्रिंस स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज , शॉप नं. 1 , हरि ओम सोसाइटी के पास , ओटन , राजेन्द्र पार्क के पास , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी डब्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल :का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रिंस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2007/31 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Prince

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिये 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5000 कि.ग्रा. से 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 168 ) /2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1601

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2007

S.O. 822. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non -automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type) with digital indication of " PWB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " PRINCE " (hersin referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by,M/ s . Prince Scale Industries , Shop No. 1, Near Hari Om Society , Odhav, Near Rajendra Park, Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/31.

1

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30000 kg. and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale Interval (e) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply; :

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same, series with maximum capacity between 5000 kg and up to 150 tonne and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and ' e' value ofthe form 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer.in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (168)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology [PART 11-SBC. 3( ii)] 1602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 823.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित्त प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स प्रिंस स्केल इंडस्ट्रीज , शॉप नं. 1 , हरि ओम सोसाइटी के पास , ओटन , राजेन्द्र पार्क के पास , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी सी आर " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन वेइंग प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रिंस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2007/32 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. है । इसमें किलोग्राम को लिटर में परिवर्तित करने के लिए अतिरिक्त सुविधा है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपद‌र्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, सिंगल फेज और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्धित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिये 500 से 10000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5000 कि.ग्रा. से 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 * या 5x10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 168 )/2006] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1603 [ भाग 11-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

New Delhi, the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 823. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity, with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service urider varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Governinent hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe Model of non -automaticweighing instrument (Crane Weighing type) with digital indication of "PCR" series ofmedium accuracy (Accuracy Class - III) and with brand name " PRINCE" ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Prince Scale Industries , Shop, No. 1, Near Hari Om Society, Odhav , Near Rajendra Park, Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark -IND/09/07/32.

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 5000 kg and minimum capacity of 10 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 500 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply. In additionto sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and Model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity between 5000 kg and up to 100 tonne and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5 g or more and ' e' value of the form 1×10k, 2x10 or 5x10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21(168)/2006]

R , MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology

} [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1604

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 824.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जूड इक्युपमेंट प्रा. लि.. संख्या 50/29 , नेहरू स्ट्रीट, मूपानार नगर , कोरूकुपेट , चेन्नई -600021 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जेईपी- जेपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ग्रेस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2007/20 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित तोलन अस्वचालित तोलन ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । इसका सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है और उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लंट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री के पूर्व या उपरांत इसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , वर्किंग सिद्धांत आदि के रूप में कोई परिवर्तन न किया जा सके ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्राम के ' ई ' मान के लिये 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्राम या उससे अधिक के' ई ' मान के लिए 5000 से 50000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10% , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 05 )/2007 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान

!

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1605

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

New Delhi , the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 824. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights' and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non -automatic weighing. instrument (Tabletop type ) with digital indication of "JEP - JIP " series of high accuracy (Accuracy Class - 11 ) and with brand name " GRACE" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Jude Equipment Pvt . Ltd. , No. 50/29, Nehru Street, Moopanar Nagar , Korukkupet , Chennai -600021 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/20.

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50 mg and with number of verificaftion scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg or more and with 'e' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , kbeing the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance, with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21(05)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 816-GI/07-3 1606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 825.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब कंन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जूड इक्यूप्मेंट प्रा. लि. , संख्या 50/29 , नेहरू स्ट्रीट , मूपानारनगर , कोरूकुपेट , चेन्नई -600021 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जेईपी टीबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ग्रेस " हैं. ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 07 /21 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबन्द किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री के पूर्व या उपरांत इसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , वकिंग सिद्धांत आदि के रूप में कोई परिवर्तन न किया जा सके ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्राम के ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 % , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 05 )/2007 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1607

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र3, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi, the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 825. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to fi by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with thờ provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its acourney quer periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic (Tabletop type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "JEP - TB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy Class - III ) and with brand name "GRACE " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Jude Equipment Pvt . Ltd. , No. 50/29, Nehru Street, Moopanar Nagar , Korrukkupet, Chennai -600021 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/21 .

The said inodel is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop Type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval ( c) is 5g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg and with verification- scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 or 5x10 , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 (05)/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 826.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट तथा माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) और बाट तथा माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जूड इक्यूप्मेंट प्रा. लि. , संख्या 50/29 , नेहरू स्ट्रीट , मूपानगर , कोरूकुपेट , चेन्नई -600021 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जेईपी- पीएफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ग्रेस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/22 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित तोलन अस्वचालित तोलन ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । इसका सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 2.30 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

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

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिये 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से अधिक और 5000 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 % , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 %, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 05) /2007]

आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1609 [ भागः II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2007

S.O. 826, Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the self-indicating non -automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " JEP-PF " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " GRACE" ( herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s .. Jude Equipment Pvt . Ltd. , No. 50/29 , Nehru Street, Moopanar Nagar, Korukkupet, Chennai -600021 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/22 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform Type) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 4 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 200g. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 5000 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

1

[ F. No. WM-21 (05)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

* का.आ. 827. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स काम्पैक इंडस्ट्री लि. , 52 वॉल रोड , पैनरोज , ओकलैंड , न्यूजीलैण्ड द्वारा विनिर्मित " लेजर एल - सी एन जी डी-15 " के वाहनों के लिए कम्प्रैस्ड गैसइस फ्यूल माप प्रणाली के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " काम्पैक एन जेड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) जिसे भारत में मैसर्स लेकॉक इंजीनियर प्राइवेट लि, 409 , अंसल मैजस्टिक टॉवर , जी-17 , विकास पुरी , नई दिल्ली को विपणित किया गया और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 /2006/309 ; समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

CNC

G COMPAC

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) वाहनों के लिए कम्प्रेस्ड गैसइस फ्यूल माप प्रणाली है । इसका उपयोग सी एन जी , बायोगैस (विशेष रूप से मिथेन ) के द्रव्यमाप को मापने के लिए किया जाता है । इसका अधिकतम प्रवाह दर 80/15 कि.ग्रा. प्रति मिनट और न्यूनतम प्रवाह दर 1 कि.ग्रा. प्रति मिनट है । न्यूनतम माप मात्रा 2 कि. ग्रा. है । अधिकतम इनलेट दबाव 35 एम पी ए है । उक्त मॉडल के जी-80 द्रव्यमान फ्लोमीटर मॉडल से विद्युत प्लस निर्गत प्राप्त करने के लिए सी 4000 काम्पैक मॉडल इलैक्ट्रानिक मूल्य कम्प्यूटिंग कैलकुलेटर/ सूचक को सम्मिलित करने के लिए उपयुक्त है । माप का एकक कि.ग्रा में है । इसमें द्रव्यमान , मूल्य और दर के लिए प्रीसेट सुविधा है । रुपयों और द्रव्यमान के लिए सूचक 6 अंकों में है और मूल्य के लिए 4 अंकों में है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता, डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम, कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 88 ) /2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1611

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग- II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2007

S.O. 827. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the pattern evaluation report and also the test report and the test results granted and approved by the Australian Government , National Measurement Institute , No. 12 Lyonpark Road, North Ryde NSW 2113 , a notified body for the purpose in the Australia , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the sald Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub -section (3) and sub -sections (7) and(8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofmodel of Compressed Gaseous Fuel (CNG) Measuring system for vehicles with brand name "Compac , NZ" and of series " Laser L - CNGD80-15 " series (hereinafter referred to as the model) , manufactured by M/s . Compac Industries Ltd., 52 Walls Road, Penrose, Auckland , New Zealand and marketed in India by M/s . Laycock Engineers Pvt . Ltd. ,409, Ansal'sMajestic Tower, G- 17, Vikas Puri, New Delhi - 1100.18 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 13/06/309;

1. The said model is a Mass Compressed Gaseous Fuel (CNG ) Measuring System for vehicles . It is used for measuring the mass of CNG, biogas ( Predominantely methane) . Its maximum flow rate is 80/15 kg per minute and minimum flow rate is 1kg/minute . The minimum measured quantity is 2kg. The maximum inlet pressure is 35 MPA. The said model incorporates a Compac model C4000 electronic price computing calculator/indicator compatible to receive electrical pulse out put from a model of KG -80 mass flowmeter. The unit of measurement is in kg. It is having preset facility for Mass, Price and Rate . The indication for money and mass is of 6 digits and for price is of 4 digits.

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

[F. No. WM-21(88)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 828.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, कंन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एसई टेराओका प्राइवेट लि.. 377/22 , छठा क्रास , विल्सन गार्डन , बंगलौर -560027 , कर्नाटक द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " डी एस -215 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एस ई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 07 / 29 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 250 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्राम है । इसमें किलोग्राम को लिटर में परिवर्तित करने के लिए अतिरिक्त सुविधा है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

5-215 kg /Litre

स्टाम्पिग प्लेट कं मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 170 )/2006] आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1613

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 828. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " DS - 215 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class 11 ) and with brand name " ESSAE " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s. Essae Teraoka Pvt . Ltd. , 377/22, 6th Cross , Wilson Garden , Bangalore- 560 027 , Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/29;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 60 kg. and minimum capacity of 250 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has additional facility for kg to litre conversion. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . The Instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply . In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design , circuit diagram, working principle, etc. before or after sale.

Further , in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of the same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and upto 500kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the rage of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50 mg and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5000 to 50000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and 'e' value of the form. 1× 10%, 2x10* or 5x10 , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (170)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 816G /07-4 1614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी, 2007

का.आ. 829.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मांडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन्न) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब कंन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एसई टेराका प्राइवेट लि. , 377/22 , छठा क्रास , विल्सन गार्डन , बंगलौर -560027 , कर्नाटक द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " र्डन 252 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एस ई " है जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/07/ 28 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

DS-252 kg / Litre

उक्त माँग ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गंज प्रकार का भार संल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) । ग्रा. में 7.5 कि.ग्रा. तक है और उसके ऊपर 2 ग्राम तक है। इसमें किलोग्राम को लिटर में परिवर्तित करने के लिए अतिरिक्त सुविधा है । इसमें एक आधंयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लंट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक की " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमत वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2×10* या 5× 10 *, के हैं. जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 170 ) /2006]

आर. माथुग्धम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1615 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3,1929

New Delhi , the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 829. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic, Weighing instrument (Table Top type) with digital indication of " DS- 252 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class 111 ) and with brand name " ESSAE " ( herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . Essae Teraoka Pvt . Ltd. , 377/22, 6th Cross , Wilson Garden , Bangalore -560 027 , and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/28;

DS-252 kg/ Litre

!

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 15 kg. and minimum capacity of 20 g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 1 g . upto 7.5 kg and 2g above that . It has additional facility for kg to litre conversion . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 -Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of the same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ' e ' value between 100 mg to 2 g and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and ' e ' value of the form 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5 ×10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM -21( 170)/2006)

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 1616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

नई दिल्ली, 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 830.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एसई टेराओका प्राइवेट लि. , 377/22 , छठा क्रास, विल्सन गार्डन , बंगलौर-560027 , कर्नाटक द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " डी एस -252 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एसई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आईएनडी/09 /07/ 27 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

DS-252kg/ Litre

'उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) । ग्रा. है । इसमें किलोग्राम को लीटर में परिवर्तित करने के लिए अतिरिक्त सुविधा है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्शन तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , सिंगल फेज़ और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत् प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 170) /2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1617

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भाग - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 9th February , 2007

S.O. 830 Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic , weighing instrument (Table Top type ) with digital indication of " DS- 252 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class II ) and with brand name " ESSAE" ( herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s. Essac Teraoka Pvt. Lad., 377/22 6th Cross , Wilson Garden, Bangalore- 560 027, Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/27;

:

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 15 kg. and minimum capacity of 50 g. The verification scale interval (e) is Ig . It has additional facility for kg to litre conversion . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighting result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of the same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50000 for ' e' value of 1 mg. to 50 mg . and verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and ' e' value of the form 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has boon manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 170)/2006 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 831.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एसई टेराओका प्राइवेट लि. , 377/22 , छठा क्रास , विल्सन गार्डन , बंगलौर -560027 , कर्नाटक द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी एस -215 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एस ई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /07/30 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

DS-215 kg/Litre

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्राम 30 कि.ग्रा. तक है और इसके ऊपर 10 ग्राम तक है । इसमें किलोग्राम को लीटर में परिवर्तित करने के लिए अतिरिक्त सुविधा है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शतप्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्शन तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, सिंगल फेज और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम, कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक की " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 500 कि.ग्रा. तक कि अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1× 10 , 2 × 10* या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 170 )/2006] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1619 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2007

S.O.. 831. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model ofnon-automatic, weighing instrument(Platform type) with digital indication of " DS - 215 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "ESSAE " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Essac Teraoka Pvt . Ltd. , 377/22 , 6thCross, WilsonGarden , Bangalore - 560027 , Karnataka and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/30;

The said model is a strain gange load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 60 Kg . kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 5g . upto 30 kg . and 10 g above that . It has additional facility for kg . to litre conversion . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighting result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 - Hertz alternate current power supply .

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of the Section 36 of the said Act, the Costral Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto 5000 kg . and with number ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for, ' e' value of between 100 mg. to 2 -g . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for 'e' value of 5 g. or more anndy'e ' value of the form 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21(170)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology.

1620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 13 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 832.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सामान्य यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " के एस " श्रृंखला के एनालॉग सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( कीचन स्केल ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वीनस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2006/439 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । इसके विनिर्माता मै . ऐस कारपोरेशन, नं. 107 , नई आतिश मार्किट, गूजर की थाडी, मानसरोवर , जयपुर , राजस्थान हैं ;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक स्प्रिंग आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 कि. ग्रा. है । माप के परिणाम डॉयल पर पाइंटर द्वारा उपदर्शित किए जाते हैं । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदनं के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ई मान 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10* या 5 × 10* , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 145 )/2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1621

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 13th February , 2007

S. O. 832. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non- automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication (Kitchen Scale ) of "KS " series of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name "VENUS" (herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . Ace Corporation , No. 107, New Atish Market, Gujar Ki Thadi , Mansarovar , Jaipur , Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark ID/09/06/439;

The said model.(see the figure given below) is a Spring based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of500g and minimum capacity of 10g . the verification scale interval (e) is 1g. The results of measurement are indicated by the pointer on dial .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument ofsimilar make, accuracy and performance of the same series with maximum capacity in the range of 500g to 50kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for 'e' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e' value 1x10%, 2x10 or 5x10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the approved said Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 145)/2006 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 816G1/07-5 1622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

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

नई दिल्ली, 13 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 8.3.3 . - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मांदल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अन्य. केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए सामान्य यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एच एस " श्रृंखला के एनालॉग सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( पर्सन वेइंग स्केल ) के मॉडल का , जिसके का नाम " वीनस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2006/441 शित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है इसके बिनिमर्माता मै. ऐस कारपोरेशन , नं. 107 , नई आतिश मार्किट, गुजराथाडी, मानसरोवर , जयपुर , राजस्थान हैं;

उक्त मॉडल नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक लीवर आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि. गाभ है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 कि. ग्रा. है । माप के परिणाम डॉयल पर पाइटर द्वारा उपदर्शित किए जाते हैं । स्टाम्पिंग नंर के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल में बिक्री में पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , कार्यकारी सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों के संबंध में परिवर्तित नहीं किया ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उसन अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) महित 100 कि.ग्रा. से 200 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5× 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 145 ) /2006]

आर. माथुरवृथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1623

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग 1]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 13th February, 2007

S. O. 833. Wherea Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weighis and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain te accuracy over periods ofer sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ), and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Ach the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication (Person Weighing Scale ) of "HS " series of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy Class III ) and with brand name " VENUS " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by MAN. Ace Corporation, No. 107 , New Atish Market, Gujar Ki Thadi , Mansarovar , Jaipur , Rajasthan and which is assigned the approved mark IND/09/06/441;

The said model (see the figure given below ) is a lever based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 150 kg . and minimum capacity of 10 kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 1 kg . The results of measurement are indicated by the pointer on dial .

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declaresares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of the same series with maximum capacity in the range of 100 kg to 200 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range 100 to 1000 for ' e' value of of 5 g. or more and with e value 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10% , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principłe, design and with the same materials with which , the approved said Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 145)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

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

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 834, -केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एस पैक मशीन , साइट नं. 55 श्री लक्ष्मी नगर , नवा इंडिया रोड, हिन्दुस्तान कालेज के सामने , सोवरीपालयम , पी ओ , कोयम्बतूर-641 028 द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग आई ई एफ ( एक्स ) , जहां एक्स= वाले " एपी- डब्ल्यूएफ-30 " श्रृंखला के आटोमेटिक ग्रेविमैट्रिक फिलिंग इंस्ट्रूमेंट ( ये फिलर प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ऐस पैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07 /35 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित आटोमैट्रिक गेविमैट्रिक फिलिंग इंसट्रमेंट ( वे फिलर ) उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम भराव दर 20 भराव प्रति मिनट है । मशीन को चावल , अनाज , पाउडर, वेफर , दालों आदि जैसे फ्री फ्लाइंग उत्पादों के भराव के लिए बनाया गया है ।

स्टॉम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जिनकी रेंज 10 ग्रा. से 5 कि.ग्रा. तक की है ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (228 ) /2006 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1625

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24 , 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 21st February , 2007

S.O. 834. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in confermity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Weight filler) belonging to accuracy class, Ref (x) , where X= 1 of ' AP- WF -30' series with brand name "ACE PACK" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Ace Pack Machines, Site No. 55, Sri Lakshmi Nagar, Nava India road, Opp . Hindustan College, Sowripalayam, P. O. Coimbatore- 641 028 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/35;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Weight filler). Its maximum capacity is 5 kg. Its maximum fill rate is 20 fills per minute . The machine is designed for filling of free flowing products like rice, grain, powders , wafers , pulses etc.

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

:

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument ofsimilar make , accuracy and performance of the same series with capacity in the range of 10g. to 5 kg . manufactured by the same marrufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 (228 )/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2007

का. आ. 835. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एक्सपर्ट एन्टरप्राइस , प्लाट नं. 76 , सैक्टर 01 , परवानू, हिमाचल प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए एक्स पी/ डबल्यूबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्सपर्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/44 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम, निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 124 )/2006]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1627

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2007

S.O.835 Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accturacy over porods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditiens;

Now, therefom, in exerpise of the powers. conferred by Sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of " AXP - WB " series of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name " AXPERT" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Axpert Enterprise, Plot No. 76, Sector 01 , Parwanoo , Himachal Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/44 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of30000 kg. and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The. Instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply . In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale.

1,

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Contral Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument sof similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity between 5000 kg and up to 100 tonne and with number of vertification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e' value of5g of more atide varie of formm 1x10% , 2x10 or 5x10%, being a positive or negative whole number of equal to zero , manufactured bythe same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 124)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2007

का. आ. 836. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एक्सपर्ट एन्टरप्राइज , प्लाट नं. 76 , सैक्टर 01 , परवानू, हिमाचल प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए एक्स पी/सी एन " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज के लिए कन्वर्शन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्सपर्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07/45 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है :

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

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

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 124 )/2006]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1629

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24 , 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 26th February, 2007

S. O. 836. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Conversion kit for Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of " AXP-CN " series of Medium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name " AXPERT " (herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . Axpert Enteprise, Plot No. 76, Sector 01 , Parwanoo, Himanchal Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/45;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30000 Kg . and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval (c) is 5 Kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The Instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall notbe changed in terms of its material , accuracy , design, circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity between 5000 kg and up to 100 tonne andwith number of vertification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5 g.or more and ' c' value of the form 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 124)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 816G1/07-6 1630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 837.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, सान्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एक्सपर्ट एन्टरप्राइस , प्लाट नं. 76 , सैक्टर 01 , परवानू, हिमाचल प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " ए एक्स पी/सी आर " श्रृंखला द्वारा अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( केन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्सपर्ट " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /07/46 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण -पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

7

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित क्रेन प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री में पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शतों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 124)/2006]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1631

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 26th February , 2007

S. O. 837. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Crane Weighing type) with digital indication of " AXP- CR " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name " AXPERT" ( herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . Axpert Enteprise, Plot No. 76 , Sector 01 , Parwanoo, Himanchal Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 07/46;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 10000 Kg . and minimum capacity of 40 kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 2 kg . It has a tare devixce with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices and model shall not be changed in terms of its material , accuracy, design, circuit diagram, working principle , etc. before or after sale .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and perfernsarice of same series with maximum capacity between 5000 kg and up to 100 tonne and with number of vertification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and ' e' value of form 1×10k, 2x10 or 5x10 , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 124)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1632

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

नई दिल्ली , 26 फरवरी , 2007

का. आ. 838.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एक्सपर्ट एन्टरप्राइस , प्लाट नं. 76 , सैक्टर 01 , परवानू, हिमाचल प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए एक्स पी-150 पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्सपर्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /07/47 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रानिक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 100 कि.ग्रा. से 200 कि.ग्रा तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 124)/2006]

आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1639 [ भात II-खण्ड 3 ( ) ]

भारत को राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

New Delhi , the 26th February, 2007

S.O. 838 Whereas the Central Government, aftới cònskering the report submined to teby the paescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the igting giveen (balow) is in coaformity with th provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) anke (8 ) of Section 36of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issires and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the mousautomatic weighing instrument (Person) Weighing typo) with digital indication of AKR1508 sepips of Modium accuracy (Accuracy class III) and with brand name " AXPERT" (herein referred to as the said Model) manufactured by M/s. Axpert Enterprise , Plot No. 76, Sector 01 , Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07 /47;

ciple, etc. before or after sale .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 150 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply. In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to changed in terms of its material, accur ant practices and model shall not be Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 12) of Sestion 36 of the paid Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same scries with maximum capacity between 100 kg, and up to 200 kg . and with number of vertification scale interval (n) in(n ) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e' value of 5 g or more and "e value of the form 1x10 , 2x10 or 5x10 , kkbeing a positive or negative whole number of equal to zero,ero, mantifactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM-21 (124)/2006 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1634

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3, 1929

नईदिल्ली, 26 फरवरी , 2007

का. आ. 839.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एक्सपर्ट एन्टरप्राइस , प्लाट नं. 76 , सैक्टर 01 , परवानू, हिमाचल प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-1 ) वाले " ए एक्स पी/एच-200 " द्वारा अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्सपर्ट " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/48 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रोमैगनेटिक फोर्स कम्पनसेशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित टेबल टॉप प्रकार का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि. ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान । मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेय तुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा और मॉडल को बिक्री से पहले या बाद में उसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , निष्पादन सिद्धांत आदि की शर्तों पर परिवतित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10* या 5 × 10* , के हैं , जो धनात्मकः या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 124) /2006]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1635

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24 , 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भाग II- खष्ठ 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 26th February, 2007

S. O. 839.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Medels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers.conferredby Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36. of said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model ofthe non - sutonetic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of " AXP/H/200 " series of special accuracy (Accuracy class B) and with brand name " AXPERT " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Axpert Enterprise, Plot No.76, Sector 01 , Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/48;

The saidmodel is an Electromagnetic Force Compensation based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of200 g. andminimum capacity of 100 mg. The verification scale interval (c) is 1 mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts, and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of vertification scale interval (n) 50000 for ' e' value of Img or more and 'e' value of form 1x10%, 2x10% or 5x10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 124)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 6 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 840,-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एवद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया /किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

1.

20-02-2007

संशोधन संख्या 5

दिसम्बर 2006

आईएस 3989 : 1984- लोहे के स्पिगट तथा सॉकेट , अपकेन्द्री ढले ( स्पन ) मल , अपशिष्ट और संवातन पाइप , फिटिंग्स और सहायकांग की विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[सं. एमटीडी 6/टी -22 ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 6th March , 2007

S. O. 840. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards. particulars of which are given inthe Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and year of the amendment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

1.

20 February, 2007

Amendment No. 5 December 2006

IS 3989: 1984 Specification for centrifugally cast ( spun) iron spigot and socket soil, waste and ventilating pipes , fittings and accessories (second revision)

Copy of this Standards 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 and Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. MTD 6/T- 22 ] Dr. (Mrs .) SNEH BHATLA, Sc.- ' F ' & Head ( MTD)

नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 841.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

1637 [ भाग II- खाण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र3 , 1929

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1.

31जनवरी 2007

आईएस 8328 1977

आईएस 8328 : 2007 - सुकटय तांबे के सरिये , छड़ें एवं सैक्शन-विशिष्टिं ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[सं. एमटीडी 8/टी-96 ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi, the 7th March , 2007 S.O. 841. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31-01-2007 1.

IS8328 : 1977

IS 8328 : 2007 Free Cutting CopperBars, Rods and Sections-Specification (First Revision)

Copy ofthis Standards 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 and Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. MTD 8 /T-96]

Dr. (Mrs. ) SNEH BHATLA, Sc . ' F ' & Head (MTD) नई दिल्ली , 14 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 842, - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1-03-2007

1. आईएस 15090 ( भाग -1-11 ) 2007

संशोधन संख्या , 1 , 1-03-2007

इस संशेधन 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) 816G1 /07-7 1638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC .3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th March , 2007

S. O. 842. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. and year of the amendment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS15090 ( Parts 1 to 11) : 2007

March 2007

Amendment No. 1 February, 2007

Copy of this amendment 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 and Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. TXD/G -25]

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

नई दिल्ली, 14 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 843.- 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 लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं ( जनवरी 2007 महिना के लिए ) :-

अनुसूची

स्वीकृत करने

क्रम लाइसेंस

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

भारतीय मानक

भाग अनु. वर्ष सं. संख्या की तिथि

का शीर्षक

भा.मा. संख्या

वर्ष/माह

(1) ( 2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6) (7) (8 ) ( 9 ) 1. 5307253 03-01-07

710

मैसर्स ग्रीनप्लाई इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड

1976

समुद्री उपयोग के लिए

ग्राम : कृपारामपुर

प्लाईवुड

पो.आ. सुकदेवपुर

जिला-24 परगना ( द)

पिन : 743503

03-01 07

2 5307354

4990

मैसर्स ग्रीनप्लाई इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड

1993

कंक्रीट के शटरिंग कार्य

ग्राम : कृपारामपुर

के लिए प्लाईवुड

पो.आ. सुकदेवपुर

जिला-24 परगना ( द )

पिन : 743503

3. 5310343 15-01-07

1328

मैसर्स एल एम इंडस्ट्रीज

1996

पृष्ठावरित सजावटी

पो.आ. राओतारी ,

प्लाईवुड

सुमुराली चौमाथा ,

नदिया, पश्चिम बंगाल

4. 5311042 22-01-07

ए सी स्टौटिक वाट- आवर 13779

मैसर्स इओन इलेक्ट्रो डिवाइसेस

1999 प्राईवेट लिमिटेड

मीटर श्रेणी 1 एवं 2

ब्लॉक : ई पी एवं जी पी,

प्लॉट ई 2-2/2 , सेक्टर -5 ,

सल्टलेक इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स कॉम्पलेक्स,

कोलकाता-700091

उत्तर 24 परगना 1639

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(9)

(6) (7) ( 8 )

(5)

(2) (3)

(4)

(1)

1991

1489 1

फ्लाई ऐस आधारित

5. 5312044 29-01-07 मैसर्स रैमको इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना

देवानमारा आयमा ,

सीमेंट

पो.आ. हरियातारा ,

पु.स्टे. खरगपुर ( एल ) ,

जिला : पश्चिम मेदिनीपुर-721301 /

पश्चिम बंगाल

[सं. सी एम डी 13:11 ]

एस. के. चौधरी , उप महा निर्देशक ( मुहर)

New Delhi, the 14th March, 2007

S.O. 843. In pursuance of Sub- regulation (5) of regulation (4) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given inthe following schedule (for the month of January, 2007)

SCHEDULE

Part. Sec. Year

IS No.

Title of the Standard

Licences Grant Date

Sl. No. No.

Name & Address ofthe Party

7 8

9

6

5

3

4

12

710

1976

MarinePlywood.

1. 5307253 03-01-2007 M/ s . Greenply Industries Ltd. ,

Vill:Kriparampur,

P.O. Skdevpur ,

Dist. 24 Parganas (S)

Pin: 743503 , W.B.

1993

4990

2. 5307354 03-01-2007 M/ s . Greenply Industries Ltd. , Plywood for concrete shuttering work

Vill: Kriparampur,

P.O. Skdevpur,

Dist. 24 Parganas (S)

Pin: 743503 , W.B.

1996

Veneered

1328

15-01-2007 M/s . L.M. Industries ,

3. 5310343

Decorative

P.O.Raotari ,

Simurali Chowmatha,

Plywood

Nadia, W.B.

13779

1999

A.C. Static Watthour

22-01-2007 M/s . Eoan Electro Devices

4. 5311042

Meters

Pvt . Ltd. ,

Class 1 & 2

Block-EP &GP,

Plot-E2-2/2 , Sector V,

SaltLake Electronics Complex,

Kol-700091

North 24 Parganas . W.B.

1489 1

1991

Portland

5. 5312044 29-01-2007 M/ s . Ramco Industries Ltd. ,

Pozzolana

Dewanmaro Ayma

Cement

P.O. Hariatara

Fly-ash

P.S. Kharagpur (L)

based

Dist. Paschim Midnapore

Pin: 721301 , W.B.

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ]

S.K. CHAUDHURI, Dy . Director General (Marks) 1640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 844.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है;

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

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. - 1 ( ई ) III/एफयूआर/748-1106 , तारीख 3 नवम्बर , 2006 का निरीक्षण वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल ईस्टेट, सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुर -440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में या कलेक्टर , नागपुर (महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है;

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों , चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 90 दिन के भीतर , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजस्व विभाग , कोल इस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स , नागपुरं -440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

गोकुल विवृत खंड

उमरेर क्षेत्र

जिला नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र )

(रेखांक सं. सी -1 ( ई ) III /एफयूआर/ 748-1106, तारीख 3 नवम्बर , 2006 )

क्रम ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

जिला

टिप्पणियां सं

पटवारी सर्कल संख्या

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

1. पिराया

40क

400.00

भाग

भिवापुर

नागपुर

2.

41

सुकली

350.00

भिवापुर

भाग

नागपुर

3. पोर्लंगांव

40क

275.00

नागपुर

भाग

भिवापुर

कुल क्षेत्र 1025.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग )

या

2532.78 एकड़ ( लगभग ) सीमा वर्णनः

क- ख रेखा बिन्दु ' क ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम खंडालझरी और पिराया की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा के साथ- साथ गुजरती है और बिन्दु ' ख' पर मिलती है ।

ख - ग- रेखा ग्राम पिराया , पोलगांव और सुकली से गुजरती है और ग्राम पोलगांव में बिन्दु ' ङ ' पर मिलती है।

घ-ङ

ङ - च- छ- रेखा ग्राम पोलगांव , सुकली और पिराया से गुजरती हुई जाती है ( नंद के पट्टे से होते हुए नक्शे में दिखाये अनुसार सभी अधिकार झ, ञ , ट, ठ और ड , ढ , ण , त की सीमा को छोड़कर ) आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है। ज-क

[ फा.सं. 43015/ 12/2006/पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ]

एच. सी. अग्रवाल , निदेशक 1641 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929.

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2007

S.O. 844. Whereas if appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

The plan bearing No. C - I (E) III/FUR/748-1106 dated the 3rd November, 2006 of the area covered by this notification can be inspectred in the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or in the office of the Collector, Nagpur ( Maharashtra) or in the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata;

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred to in sub -section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act in the office of the Western Coalifields Limited, Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440 001 (Maharashtra) within pinety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Gokul Opencast Block

Umrer Area, District Nagpur (Maharashtra)

(Plan No. C- 1 (E) III/FUR /748-1106 dated the 3rd November, 2006) .

Tahsil

Remarks

District

:

SI. No.

Patwari circle number

Area in hectares

Name of Village

1.

400.00

Part 40A

Piraya

Nagpur

Bhiwapur

2.

Sukali

41

350.00

Part

Nagpur

Bhiwapur

3.

275.00

40A

Part Polgaon

Bhiwapur Nagpur

Total area: 1025.00 hectares ( approximately)

or

2532.78 acre ( approximately) Boundarydescription :

AB : Line starts from point 'A' and passes along the common village boundary of villages Khandalzari and Piraya and meets at point 'B' .

B-C-D-E : Line passes through villages Piraya, Sukali and Polgaon and meets in Polgaon village at point 'E' .

E-F-G- H -A: Line passes through villages Polgaon, Sukali , Piraya ( along the lease boundary of Nand - excluding the All Rights Arca shown in the plan I, J , K, L and M, N, O, P) and meets at starting point "A.'

[F.No. 43015/ 12/2006/PRIW - I ]

H.C. AGRAWAL, Director 1642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) )

पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च, 2007

का. आ. 845.- तेल उद्योग (विकास) अधिनियम 1974 (1974 का 47) की उपधारा (3) के खण्ड (3) द्वारा प्रदत्त् की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में , उनके सामने दर्शायी गई अवधि के लिए, या अगला आदेश जारी होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, नियुक्त/ पुनर्नियुक्त करती है:-

1. श्री पी.के. सिन्हा, संयुक्त सचिव एवं वित्तीय सलाहकार, पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय 2. श्री ए.के. जैन, संयुक्त सचिव (अंवेषण), पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय 3. श्री वी.के. सिब्बल, महा निदेशक, हाईड्रोकार्बन महानिदेशालय

4. डॉ० यू.डी. चौबे , अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, गैल ( इंडिया) लिमिटेड

से

तक

4.11.2006

3.11.2008 20.3.2007

30.6.2008 1.11.2006

31.10.2008

31.1.2009 1.2.2007

[ फा. सं. जी-35012/2 / 91 -वित्त-11 ]

मीरा शेखर , अवर सचिव

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 20th March , 2007

S. O. 845. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (3) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry ( Development ) Act , 1974 ( 47 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints/re - appoints the following officers as Members of the Oil Industry Development Board for the period shown against their names or until further orders , whichever is earlier :

1. Shri P.K. Sinha, Joint Secretary & Financial Adviser , Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas 2. Shri A.K. Jain , Joint Secretary ( Exploration) , Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas 3. Shri V.K. Sibal , DG , Directorate General of Hydrocarbons 4. Dr. U.D. Choubey , Chairman & Managing Director , GAIL ( India) Limited.

From

To

4.11.2006 3.11.2008

20.3.2007

30.6.2008

31.10.2008

1.11.2006

1.2.2007

31.1.2009

[F. No. G - 35012/2/91 - Fin . -II ] MEERA SHEKHAR , Under Secy.

[ जत - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1643

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

नई दिल्ली , 21 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 846.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जेन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 23 दिसम्बर , 2006 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. संख्या 4929 तारीख 21 दिसम्बर, 2006 द्रारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, कोयली से दहेज तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए गुजरात रिफाइनरी इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, वडोदरा द्रारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जेन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचन की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 27 दिसम्बर, 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्रारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त घोषणा के प्रकाशन की इस तारीख को निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: गुजरात

जिला: भरूच

तालुका : वागरा

उप खण्ड सं.

सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्ड सं.

गाँव का नाम

3

2

1

62

36-बदलपुर

63

206

Total

3

2

42

1312

37-पडलपुर /चांचवेल

57/B

1327/B

57/A

1327/A

Total

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

5

20

28

00

83

15

00

57

49

00

60

93

00

6

5.

4

07

13

00

83

22

00

94

26

00

34

62

00 1644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

2

3

430

38-केशवान (1 )

412

433

435

434

429

414

372

Total

40-अभिल

376

289

374

PP

375

378

377

75

Total

279

41-गोलाद्रा

278

280

287

B1

273

272

P2

P1

272

270

200

177

199

182

201

A

202

183

160

187

159

156

157

Total

45- दहेज

1392

1390

1304

1314

1315

1247

1257

P

1251

945

Total

[ PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 4

5

6 00

19

25 00

10

85 00

19

95 00

12

60 00

20

48 00

06

46 00

46

53

44

00

89 01

81

01 00

51

84 00

12

52 00

33

95 00

74

06

00

01

80 00

53

55 00

18

06 01

78

46 00

70

20

00

06

75 00

17

55 00

09

00

25

00

74

16

00

74 00

09

00

26

00.

55 00

33

75 00

01

55

00

37

15

21

00

60 00

03

15 00

30

15

39

60

00

00

32

13 00

35

01

00

22

05

00

28

80

00

15

30

83

03

76

00

43

21

00

18

03

00

44

02

00

09

37

00

18

82

98

00

30

00

21

00

00

27

08

01

62

00

01

92

35

[फा. सं. आर-25011 /3/2005- ओ.आर.- I ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव ६ का पत्र 24, 2007/3192

a 2

1645

New Delhi the 21st March , 2007

48 S. 02846. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 4929 dated 21-12-2006 under sub- Section ( f) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared Its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the Transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Dahel in the State of Gujarat BTS

by Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Andwhereas, the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on the 27th December , 2006;

085

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of thesaid Act, submitted report to the Central Government

And whereas , the Central Government has after considering the report and on being satisfied that said land is required for laying pipeline has decided to acquire .00 the right of user their in; 00 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the night ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; $61 And further in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government vests on this date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all 00

ncumbrances .

SCHEDULE

00

20

SS

State: Gujarat

Dist: Bharuch

00

Taluje: Vagra 85

00

σε

Survey / Block No. Name of Village

a

A

a

EA 1

00 2

36BADALPUR

00 62

63

00

20

AA

00206 τε 20

00Total 58 8

001312 378PADALPURI

01327/B CHANCHVELS

00327/A 80

Total sa 10

10430 38FRESHWANG ) .

412

433

435

434

429

414

372

Total 816 GI/07-8

Area

Sub - Division No.

Hectare . Are centiare 3

20

28

15

83 40 €100

57

49

A8 :00

60

93

are

07

13

42

83

22

57/B

85100

94

26

57/A

62

84 24000

25

19

sto 100

10

85

00

95

19

00

60

00

12

48

20

00

46

00

06

46

53

00

44

89

00

01

81

01 1646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

2

3 40 - AMBHEL

376

289

374

-PP.

375

378

377

75

Total

41 - GOLADRA

279

278

280

287

B1

273

272

P2

272

P1

270

200

41 - GOLADRA

177

199

(Contd.)

182

201

-A

202

183

160

187

P1

159

156

157

Total

1

2

3 45 - DAHEJ

1392

1390

1304

1314

1315

1247

1257

P

1251

945

Total

[ PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ) 4

5

6 00

51

84 00

12

52 00

33

95 00

06

74 00

01

80 00

53

55 00

18

06 01

78

46

20

00

70 00

06

75 00

17

55 00

09

00 00

25

74 00

16

74 00

09

00 00

26

55 00

33

75 00

01

55 00

37

15

21

00

60 00

03

15 00

15

30 00

39

60 00

32

13 00

01

35 00

05

22

00

28

80 00

15

30 03

76

83

6 4

5

00

21

43 00

18

03 00

02

44

00

09

37 00

18

82 00

30

98

21

00

00. 00

27

08

01

00

62 01

92

35 [F. No. R - 25011/3/2005 -O.R. -1 ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

[ भाव खण्ड 3 ( H ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

1647

नई दिल्ली, 21 मार्च, 2007

प्र. आ. 847.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अजॅन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपत्र, तारीख 23 दिसम्बर, 2006 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. संख्या 4930 तारीख 21 दिसम्बर 2006 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से दहेज तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए गुजरात रिफाइनरी इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, वडोदरा द्रारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जेन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचन की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 27 दिसम्बर, 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी,

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

い

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त घोषणा के प्रकाशन की इस तारीख को निहित होगा । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1648

अनुसूची

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

राज्य: गुजरात

जिला: भरूच

तालुका: आमोद

उप खण्ड सं.

सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्ड सं.

गाँव का नाम

3

2

1

1563

33-आछोद(1 )

1554

1632

1634

Total

3

2

1

857

33-आछोद(2)

793

790

789

782

780

838

822

778

777

776

774

773

467

466

465

458

408

424

Total

3

2

1

165

34-इंटोला

166

176

P2

177

179

189

187

207

210

216

226

212

217

Total

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

5

6 4

43.

00

09

80 00

07

64

03

00

32

06

00

85

60

00

6

5

4

63

09

00

58

06

00

:

06

03

00

83

02

00

87

03

00

00

09

00

02

89 00

05

68 00

07

52 00

37

03

00

17

05

00

:

73 00

09

25

06

00

11

60 :

00

85 00

09

31

08

.00

01

18

00

88

11

00

03

27

00

26 01

62

6 4

5

15

11

00

84 00

09

19

68 00

67

10

00

52

21

00

12

20

00

03

06 00

47

06

00

51

19

00

56

13

00

26

08

00

12

13

00

18

09

00

14

66

01 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

गाँव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्ड सं.

isisiustste

1

2

104

रोजा टंकारीया(1)

691A

106

क्षेत्रफल

उप- खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर bom: श्रीवका 3

4

5

6 00

06

81 on xoolaevis melliv to этви

.on noizivio -dua

91A 191615551

รา ธาร กร ว

a

A156

a

0012

EA

٢٥

08

00 21

1 00

٤٥

12

ao

SE

00

08

00

28

ε a

8

Total

00

82

20

80

00

SO

00

00

70 $00

01

83

45

99

01

35

00

36

15

30 161

09

18

17

10 23-EHHOD(

फा. सं. आर-25011 /3 /2005-ओ.आर.-1 09

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

00 New Delhi , the 21st March , 2007

00 eo. 18 s.O. -Whereas by a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 4930 dated 21-12-2006 under sub- section ( 1 ) of section of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to that notification for the purpose of aying pipeline for the transportationof Petroleum Product from Koyali to Dahej in the State of Gujarat by Indian Oil CorporationLimited; oa 00 ٤٢٢

And whereas the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on the 27th December, 2006; 00 824

10

81

εσ And whereas the Compete 804 CompetentAuthority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of 00 the gaid Act, submitted report to the Central Governmentют

A ε And whereas, the Central Government has after considering the leppitoनामा पार being satisfied that said land is required for laying pipeline has decided to acquire the right of user their ingg 00

Or 59 Now therefore, in exergise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declaces that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule annexed to this inotification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

00

er

Andfurther, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of section 6 of the Said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shaff instead ofvesting in the Central Government vests on this date of publication of thisdeclaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all Lencumbrance 00 1650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

SCHEDULE

Taluka:Amod

[ PART II- SEC . 3( ii ))

Dist: Bharuch

Name of Village Survey / Block No. Sub- Division No.

1

2

3

1563 33 - ACHHOD ( 1 )

1554

1632

1634

Total 1

3

2

857 33 -ACHHOD ( 2 )

793

790

789

782

780

838

822

778

777

776

774

773

467

466

465

458

408

424

Total

2

1

3

165

34- INTOLA

166

176

177

P2

179

189

187

207

210

216

226

212

217

Total

State: Gujarat

Area

Are Centiare Hectare.

4

5

6 00

43

09 00

80

07

00

03

64

06

00

32 00

60

85 4

5

6 00

09

63 00

06

58 00

03

06 00

02

83 00

03

87 00

09

00 00

02

89 00

05

68 00

07

52 00

03

37 00

05

17 00

73

09

00

06

25 00

11

60 00

09

85 00

31

08

00

18

01 00

11

88 00

27

03 01

62

26

5

6 4

00

11

15 00

09

84 00

68

19

00

10

67 00

21

52 00

20

12 00

03

06

06

47 00

00

19

51

13

00

56 00

26

08

00

13

12 00

09

18 01

66

14 1651

भारक का राजपत्र स्प्रर्च 24, 2007 /चैत्र 3, 1929

Area

Name of Village Survey / Block No. Sub - Division No.

Hectare .

6

4

3

5

2

0006

104

31.

15

106

SOROZA TANKARIYA( 1)

00

on

00

70

165

66

01

156

00

112

31.

06.

21

45

99

00

35

11

01

136

00

001

12

15.

6.

7.

09

18

00

17

10

8

וקו

20

Total

1F. No. R - 25011 /3 /2005-0.8 . - 11 S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secу.

नई दिल्ली, 21 मार्च 2007

:

कर. आ. 848. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम भरू खनिजे पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जेन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी, भारत के राजपुत्र, तारीख 23 दिसम्बर 2006 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का आ संख्या 4931 तारीख 21 दिसम्बर, 2008 द्रारा उस अधिसूत्वत्ता से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में कोयली से दहेज तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुजरात रिफाइनरी इंडिकत असल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, वडोदरा द्रारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजक के लिए प्रयोग के अधिकार का अर्जेन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचन की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 27 दिसम्बर 2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी A Insteqino erdi.eeter DNA

betalt of hogen berlindua loa pise erit और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय "सरकार को रिपोर्ट के'दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान होया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्पित किया जाए:

400 ent to samaxo mentul anA अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि पाइमलाइन बिछाने के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जेन किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपमारा (1) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोगे का अधिकार केन्द्रीय संस्कार में निहित होने के बजाए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड वडोदरा में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त घोषणा के प्रकाशन की इस तारीख को निहित होगा ।

1 1652

[PART 1 ] SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

अनुसूची

जिला : वडोदरा

राज्य: गुजरात तालुका : पादरा

क्षेत्रफल

उप खण्ड सं.

सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्ड सं.

गाँव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

एयर

6

5

4

3

2

1

14

00

95 15

10-ताजपुरा

75

15

00

35

04

14

00

51

74

44

00

Total

6

5

4

2

3

1

68

00

00

316

12-पिपली

68

00

00

Total

6

4

5

2

3

1

36

00

00

691

14-आआंती(2)

00

00

Total

[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2005 - ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st March , 2007

S.O. 848.-Whereas by à notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 4931 dated 21-12-2006 under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Koyali to Dahej in the State of Gujarat by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on the 27th December , 2006;

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

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

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 annexed to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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

1653.

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3. 1929

[ II- वष्ठ 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State: Gujarat

Dist: Vadodara

Taluka: Padra

Survey/ Block No. Nameof Village

2 1

15 10 - TAJPURA

35

51

Total

2 1

316 12- PIPLI

Total

2 1

691 14- ΑΑΝΤΙ (2)

Total

Area

Centiare

Sub - Division No.

Are

Hectare.

6

5

4

3

95

00

14

75

15

00

04

14

00

7.4

44

00

6

5

4

3

68

00

00

68

00

00

6

5

4

3

36

00

00

36

00

00

[F. No. R-25011/3/2005-0.R. -1 ]

S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 23 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 849.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि कर्नाटक राज्य में देवनगोंदी से नया बेंगलोर अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय एअरपोर्ट, देवनहल्ली, तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ।

और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्व अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ।

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

उक्त अनुसूची में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति, उस तारीख से, जिसको राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिनों के भीतर, भूमि के उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध मे लिखित रुप मे आक्षेप श्री आर. आर. जन्नू सक्षम प्राधिकारी (कर्नाटक), इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, देवनगोंदी से नया बेंगलोर अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय एअरपोर्ट देवनहल्ली तक एटीएफ पाइपलाइन परियोजना, फ्लेट नं 101 , एस के तूलिप अपार्टमेंट, चेअरमेन लेऔट, 9 बि मैन, बि.एस.एन.एल. एरिया मेनेजर्स आफीस के नजदीक, बाणसवाडी, बेंगलोर-560043, कर्नाटक को भेज सकेगा ।

816 G1 /07-9 1654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

अनुसूची

जिला : बेंगलोर रूरल तालूका होसकोटे

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] राज्य: कनर्नाटक

क्षेत्रफल

हिस्सा नंबर

1

2

3 होब्ली : जडीगेनहल्ली

23

तरवहल्ली

पी1

23

पी2

23

पी3

23

पी4

23

पी5

20

2

20

1

36

3

35

26

3

35

1

31

2

3

32

1

31

30

2

30

1

120

परमनहल्ली

116

115

1

111

110

2

125

126

1

109

128

135

139

144

145

1

आर

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर 4

5

6 0

74

15 0

06

97 0

12

66 0

03

85 0

07

27 0

14

21 0

01

34 0

06

79 0

87

03

0

00

29 0

15

78 0

00

26 0

04

05

0

06

35 0

11

69 0

04

63 0

02

65 0

04

96 0

01

28 0

02

57

13

0

83

08

0

05 0

07

22

0

06

14 0

94

08 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929 1

2

3

3

146

146

1

150

2

149

2

150

1

4

151

3

151

184

179

32

वागटा अग्रहारा

31

30

29

25

24

23

18

2ए

19

1

19

2

20

10

वागटा

1वी

9

7

6

32

होनचनहल्ली

65

32

5

32

2

32

1

66

2 गोंवींदपुरा

66

1

67

4

68

68

3

68

2

68

1

69

1655 4

5

0

02

66 0

03

94 0

06

28 0

00

15 0

06

48 0

46

05

0

01

09

0

08

24 0

04

11 0

04

94 0

03

06 0

02

88 0

02

25 0

03

98 0

02

95 0

02

84 0

31

00

0

06

01 0

04

06 0

26 09

0

09

72 0

17

86 19

0

97 0

00

52 0

76 02

0

02

13 0

02

37 0

01

91 0

03

00 0

03

20 0

06

16 0

06

34 02

73 0

0

03

75 0

01

20 0

20

88 1656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

3 1

2

70

1

2

70

71

72

73

74

2ए

74

2वी

1

75

71

4 वडीगेहल्ली

71

3

2

71

71

75

4

69

1

68

68

2

65

64

63

6

78

79

81

81

पी1

81

पी2

81

पी3

85

84

82

1

86

86

2

89

183

जडीगेनहल्ली

185

52

हरळूरु

2

51

1

51

[ PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 4

5

6 0

01

57 0

01

65 0

08

53 0

00

28 12

31 0

0

03

03 0

04 05

03

0

45 0

90 01

04

29 0

03

0

49

60 0

02

06

11 0

0

01

04 0

07

80

58 0

04

0

07

95

44 0

05

66 0

04

01

40 0

07

22 0

56 0

55

02

0

44

46

03

0

06

0

23

07

0

55 0

01

35 0

67

11

54

42 0

13 0

70

07

0

37

30 0

11

0

03

80 1657

राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भांग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3

2

1

49

1डी 何

49

सी 曲

57

・・

47

4

61

61

2ए 四

61

62

62

2ए 只

62

2वी 有

62

2सी

62

2डी

34

34

30

30

32123

30

30

4ए

30

4वी 呎商

30

5

31

12

31

25

25.

26

灭时.2

25

1

25

4

23

23

3

2

23-

i

23

1

16

17

2

16

9,

पी1

9

1पी

9

2पी

उपी

9

4

5

6 0

00 06

00

99 0

14

83. 0

00

10 0

10 07

0

54 04

0

20 08

0

04

09 0

52 01

0

42 01

0

01

43 0

94 01

0

10 00

39 02

04 06

000

65 00

04

12 1000 0

03

69 00

53 0

63 02

0

90 01

0

01

63 0

13 01

0

01

87 0

00

19 0

0

11

19

35

01

0 1658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1

2

3 होब्ली : कसबा

103

1 कोलतूर

}

103

2

1

198

209

117

104

106

2

105

83

1

70

1

71

2

71

1

73

74

2

74

1

7

8

10

1

12

2

3

187

186

184

1

183

182

6

5

182

181

3

181

2

180

4

180

3

180

2

19

2

1

19

20

6

20

5

20

4

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 4

5

6 0

08

24 0

11

62 0

25

51 0

08

06 0

08

09 0

03

73 0

17

29 0

19

49 0

00

20 0

11

74 0

08

93 0

05

98 0

02

18 0

01

69 0

10

89 0

12

69 0

14

17 0

00

19 0

04

46 0

05

76 07

0

23 0

04

43 0

00

29 0

04

57 0

09

83 0

00

77 05

0

55 0

09

42 0

01

29 05

0

57 0

02

33 0

02

65 0

01

20 0

01

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

1

2

3

20

3

21.

2

21

1

22

24

177

174

1

173

1

20

142

6 हलसहल्ली हुल्लूर अमनीकेरे

142

5

126

पी1

126

पी2

126

पी3

125

पी1

125

पी2

125

पीउ

129

118

2

118

1.

114

3.

114

2.

115

2

115

1

113

3

113

2.

2

113

1पी1

32

दोइड हुल्लूर

8वी

32

8ए

32

7ए

32

6

32

5

32

4

32

3

41

3

38

39

37

1659 4

5

6 0

01

56 0

01

18 0

09

01 0

00

18 0

06

05 0

09

88 0

49

09

0

00

66 0

03

76 0

04

31 0

02

99 0

10

47 0

03

85 0

03

94

0

02

25

0

05

08

0

03

70

0

01

29

0

05

79

0

02

86

0

05

34

0

01

67

0

04

72

0

00

36

0

00

96

0

01

27

0

01

98

0

00

91

0

00

85

১

0

02

23

0

00

62

0

05

35

0

00

34

0

05

48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1660

3

2

1

36

4

33

1

33

3

46

1

46

1

47

2

59

1

59

58

1 ए

5

75

2

75

1

75

1

129

2

17

यलचनायकनपुरा

16

15

14

2

2

9

1

9

3

8

2

8

1

8

2

7

1

7

1

6

2

1

25

चिक्काहल्लुर

25

पी2

पी4

25

25

पी5

104

कुरुवरहल्ली

107

108

109

110

106

158

कल्लहल्ली

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

6

5

4

28 00

0

47 09

0

34

05

0

42

01

0

27

05

0

15

00

0

58

11

0

22

05

0

13

03

0

56

05

0

16

06

0

10

00

0

60

06

0

91

01

0

32

09

0

78

10

0

55

05

0

07

03

0

77

06

0

15

04

0

13

04

0

24

04

0

26

06

0

75

03

0

63

17

0

21

00

0

21

41

0

04

23

0

06

39

0

41

23

0

61

13

0

34

07

0

73

12

0

81

21

0

71

08

0 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007 /चैत्र 3, 1929 [.भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3

2

1

2

157

1

157

156

155

154

149

1

150

2

150

147

52

वावसंद्रा

2

51

51

1

1

50

49

47

57

58

सी

5

59

4

59

59

32

$59

1

59

4

62

60

1

62

62

3

2

62

1

49

लक्कोंडहल्ली

2

48

48

1

5

45

45

2

1

45

44

40

4

1

43

3

41

1

39

816G1/07-10

1661

5

6 4

03

0

19

65 0

04

60 0

07

0

07

28 0

81 11

0

12

39

45 0

02

0

17 09

15

99 0

46 0

04

0

08

98 04

0

85 0

84 03

02

71 0

0

16 09

33 0

15

0

48 00

0

03

68

36 0

04

0

04

68 0

03

44 0

03

69 05

0

43 0

00

83 05

0

68 00

48 0

06

38 0

0

06

66

16 0

02

00 0

04

0

02

26 0

04

55

32 04

0

0

40 06

0

G1

04 00

16 0

43 0

11

0

03

31 1662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

2

3 1

39

5

2

38

38

1

31

28

4

27

3

27

1

26

25

होब्ली : सूलिबेले

166

कंवलीपुरा

167

168

169

170

3

40

हसीगाळा

1

40

39

3

2

39

1

174

174

2

174

3

1

32

31

2

24

25

3

26

27

28

5

1

28

4

7

4

2

3

3

169

2

1

169

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

5

6 4

0

03

49

28 0

04

23 0

04

11 0

08

0

07

48 0

50 05

0

01

57 0

91 09

07

0

51 04

09 0

05

0

79 0

00

75 02

0

52 03

61 0

0

02

29 0

01

43 0

02

95 08

26 0

24 02

0

01

64 0

02

54 0

15 0

05

30 0

09

0

03

34

71 0

03

01

57 0

02

76 0

70 0

01

17 0

01

06 0

02

23 0

02

88 0

04

06

0

95 0

05

90 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929.

3

2

168

120

1

122

123

4

124

112

127

127

127

127

1234

1

109

128

130

130

130

3- 123

4

130

3C

132

132

1C

132

3D

132

3B

132

1D

132

1B

132

2

2.

146

142

2.

142

1

2

143

139

पि1

139

पि2

139

पि3

139

पि4

108

पि कम्मसंद्रा

67

1

4

68

78

2

1663 4

5

0

01

89 0

02-

92 03

46 0

0

03

79 0

02

25 0

03

64 04

57 0

00

47

03 08.

43 09

-000

53 0

00

70 0

00

37 00

0

10 00

0

01

56 0

02

42 0

0

04

73

05 0

03

32 10

0

50 06

0

02

0

58 14

27 0

0

74

54 0

11 00

19 00

0

0

00

87 1664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

2

3 1

जिला: बेंगलोर रूरल तालुका : देवनहल्लि

होब्ली: चन्नरायपट्टणा

1

44

गंगावारा

44

चौडप्पनहल्ली

44

23

44

4

46

45

42

41

31

3

32

4

32

30

1

32

4

2

5

1

5

2

6

1

6

7

15

16

13

1

1

17

2

18

1

18

20

3

12

7

140

सोमत्तनहल्ली

11

141

4

141

8

141

3

141

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

5

6 4

राज्य: कर्नाटक

95

06

0

61

07

0

06

78 0

28 0

04

60 0

03

0

06

78

56 0

01

04

0

92

02

96 0

05

31

60 0

01

04

12 0

0

05

87 0

01

36

04

57 0

12

08

0

06

0

31

34 0

08

0

06

08

67

05

0

0

07

09

56 0

06

67 0

05

07

69 0

10

20 0

01

51 0

16

0

99

00

10 0

15 0

03 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भांग II- सखण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2

1

3

142

137

136

148

149

63

जोन्नहल्ली

2

कग्गलहल्ली

34

भटमरेनहल्ली

33

27

25

24

23

26

5

1

5

2

3

6

6

2ए

6

2वी

10

1

2

10

10

3

4

10

10

5

21

कावडदासनहल्ली

18

19

जिला: बेंगलोर अर्बन तालुका: यलहका

होब्ली :जाला

21

दुम्मनहल्ली

20

19 .

39

40

:

1665 4

5

6 0

72

18

0

12

40

11

0

41 0

47

76 0

51

06 0

22

75

13

0

85

69 0

03

0

79

14

28

16

( 0

0

00

15 0

02

79 0

00

99 0

95

09

0

31

14

07

28 0

0

02

69 0

00

38 0

13

87

73

28 0

74 0

16

0

04

16 राज्य: कनर्नाटक

18 0

08

0

19

88 0

12.

81

10 0

00

0

37

35 1666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

3 1

2

1

8

उनसुरु

8

2पी1

8

2पी2

8

2पी3

109

108

107

106

105

5

7

4

2

4

4

1

113

88

1

26

मैलनहल्ली

}

26

2

116

18

14

19

6

2

6

।

6

1 ए 1वी

5

1

3

2

4

2

110

3

5

43.

चिक्कनहल्ली

43

1

.44

2

2

26

26

3

1

26

[ PART 11-SEC . 3(ii) ] 4

5

6 15

0

28 0

05

28 10

16 0

06

0

95 0

07

57 00

50 0

18

0

14 0

07

73 0

01

94 0

79 02

0

78 00

05

0

34 24

0

89 24

50 0

0

22 08

0

87 28

60 20

0.

10

0

94 07

62 0

0

05

08 0

16

65 07

0

15 07

37 0

0

05

33 0

01

09 0

03

77 0

12

48 0

05

25 0

09

71

0

82 07 1967

हीरा मार्च 24, 2001 मैत्र

10290 STINAD.911

4

5

6 1

04

0

63

2 fontei

27 ( shots.an

03

29

ποιείν 0-300 27

smak 88

populi ste

28

00

3

28

92

1

0

28

2

0

03

59

29

LUAHASIAT

03

0

29

2

03

0

93

30

0

02

38

30

01

2

0

41

31

0

61

01

06

31

0

08

052

09

90

वेगुर

0

04

71

2

95

0

05

01

95.

14

94

0

24

08

0

14

: 100

80

1

: 101

0

04

76

32

13

0

;

101

46

0

16

17 8

84

84

$81} سلم 2

0

11

53

: 85

[फा. सं. आर-25011/3/2007-ओ.आर. -1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव ЛАНАЙАМАРАЯ

New Delhi , the 23rd March, 2007

S. O. 849. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the públic interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Devanagondhi to New Bangalore International Airport Devanahalli in the State of Karnataka , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And, whereas, it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to Shri.R.R.Jannu , Competent Authority ( Karnataka ) , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Devanagondhi to New Bangalore International Airport Devanahalli ATF Pipeline Project , Flat No.101 , S.K.Tulip Apartment , Chairman Layout, 9th B Main , Beside BSNL Area Managers Office, Banaswadi , Bangalore -560043 (Karnataka) .

1668

[PART II SEC. 3( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

SCHEDULE

State : Karnataka Taluk: Hosakote

District : Bangalore Rural

Area

Surveyno.

Name of the Village

Sub-Division no .

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

6

4

5

3

2

1

Hobil : Jadigenahalli

0

74

15

23

P1

TARABAHALLI

P2

23

23

P3

P4

23

P5

23

06

97

0

2

20

12

66

0

1

20

0

03

85

36

07

27

0

3

35

14

21

3

0

26

34

0

01

1

35

06

79

0

2

31

87

03

3

0

32

00

0

29

1

31

78

15

0

2

30

00

26

0

1

30

04

0

05

120

PARAMANAHALLI

06

35

0

116

11

69

0

115

04

63

0

1

111

65

02

2

0

110

96

04

0

125

01

28

0

126

02

57.

0

109

1

83

13

0

128

05

08

0

135

07

22

0

139

14

06

0

144

94

08

1

0

145 भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3

2

1

3

146

146

1

2

150

2

149

1

150

4

151

3

151

184

179

32

VAGATA AGRAHARA

31

30

29

25

24

23

18

2A

1

19

2

19

20

1B

10

VAGATA

9

7

6

6

32

HONACHANAHALLI

5

32

32

2

1

32

2

66

GOVINDAPURA

1

66

67

4

68

68

3

2

68

1

68

69

816G1/07-11

1669

5

6 0

02

06

03

94 0

06

0

28

00

15 0

06

48 0

0

05

46

01 0

09

0

24

08

04

11 0

94

04

0

06 0

03

0

02

88

02

0

25

03

0

98

02

0

95

84 0

02

00

31 0

01 0

06

06 0

04

26

09

0

72

09

0

86

17

0

97 0

19

52

00

0

02

0

76

02

0

13

37

02

0

0

01

91

00

03

0

20

03

0

16

06

0

34 0

06

02

73 0

75

03

0

0

01

20

88 0

20 1670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

3 1

2

70

1

2

70

71

72

73

74

2A

74

2B

1

75

4

71

VADIGEHALLI

3

71

2

71

1

71

75.

4

69

1

68

2

68

65

64

63

6

78

79

81

81

P1

P2

81

P3

81

85

84

82

86

1

2

86

89

183

JADIGENAHALLI

185

52

HARALURU

2

51

51

1

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 4

5

6

01

0

57

65 0

01

0

53

08

00

28 0

31

12

0

0

03

03

05

04 0

0

03

45

01

90 0

04

29 0

0

03

49

02

0

60

11 0

06

04

01

0

0

07

80 0

04

58

95 0

07

0

05

44

04

66 0

40 0

01

07

22 00

55

56 0

02

44

03

46 0

0

06

23

07

55 0

01

35 0

0

11

67

42 0

54

13 0

70

0

07

37

30 0

11

0

80

03 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2

3

1D

49

1C

49

57

47

61

1

61

2A

2B

61

1

62

62

2A

62

2B

2C

62

62

2D

3

34

34

30

30

30

2123

30

4A

30

4B

30

5

1

31

2

31

3A

25

3B

25

26

2

25

1

25

4

23

3

23

2

23

23

1

16

1

16

2.

}

9

P1

9

1P

9

2P

3P

9

1671 4

5

6- 0

06-

30

F

0

00

99 0

14

83 0

00

10

07

10 0

04

0

54

20

08

0

04

09 0

0

01

52 0

42

01

01

0

43 0

01.

94 0

00

10 0

02

39 0

06

04 0

00

65 0

04

12 0

03

69 0

53

00

0

02

63 0

01

90 0

01

63 0

01

13

01

87 0

0

00

19

19 0

11

0

01

35 1672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1

2

3 Hobli : Kasaba

KOLATHURU

103

103

1 } 2

1

198

209

117

104

106

2

105

1.

83

70

1

2

71

1

71

73

74

2

1

74

7

8

1

10

12

2

3

187

186

1

184

183

182

6

182

5

181

3

181

2

180

4

180

3

180

2

2

19

19

1

20

6

20

5

20

4

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii) ] 4

5

6 0

24

08

0

11

62 0

25

51 0

08

06 0

08

09 0

03

73 0

17

29 0

49

19

:

20 0

00

0

11

74 0

93

08

0

05

98 0

02

18

01

0

69 0

10

89 0

12

69

14

0

17

00

0

19 0

04

46 0

05

76 0

07

23 0

04

43 0

00

29 0

04

57 0

09

83 0

00

77 0

05

55 0

09

42

01

0

29 0

05

57

02

0

33

02

0

65 0

20 01

0

01

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929 1

2

3

3

20

21

2

21

1

22

24

177

174

1

1

173

20

HALASAHALLI

HULLURU AMANIKERE

142

6

142

5

126

P1

126

P2

126

P3

125

P1

P2

125

125

P3

129

2

118

118

1

3

114

114

2

2

115

115

1

113

3

113

2

: 1P1

113

: 32

8B DODDAHULLURU

8A

32

32

7A

32

6

32

5

4

32

32

3

41

3

38

39

37

1673

5

4

6 0

01

56 0

01

18 0

01

09

0

00

18 0

06

05 0

09

88 0

09

49 0

00

66 0

03

76 0

04

31 0

02

99 0

47

10

0

03

85

03

94 0

0

02

25 0

05

08 0

03

70 0

01

29 0

05

79 0

02

86

05

0

34 0

01

67 0

04

72 0

00

36 0

00

96 0

01

27 0

01

98

00

0

91 0

00

85

02

0

23

00

0

62 0

35

05

0

00

34 0

05

48 1674.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

3

2

1

36

4

33

1

33

3

46

1

46

47

1

2

59

1

59

58

1A

75

5

75

2

1

75

1

129

2

17

YALACHANAYAKANAPURA

16

15

14

2

9

1

9

3

8

2

8

1

8

7

2

7

1

6

1

2

1

25

P1 CHIKKAHULLURU

P2

25

25

P4 }

P5

25

104

KURUBARA HALLI

107

108

109

110

106

158

KALLAHALLI

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 4

5

6 0

00

28 0

47

09

05

0

34

01

0

42 0

05

27

00

0

15

11

0

58 0

05

22

03

13 0

56 0

05

0

06

16

00

10 0

0

06

60

01

0

91

32 0

09

0

10

78 0

05

55

07 0

03

06

0

77 0

15

04

13 0

04

0

04

24

26 0

06

0

03

75

17

63 0

00

0

21 0

41

21 0

23

04 0

39

06 0

23

41

13

0

61

34 0

07

12

0

73

21

81 0

0

08

71 [ II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1675

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

1

2

3

157.

2

157

1

156

155

154

149

150

1

2

150

147

52

VABASANDRA

2

51

51

1

50

1

49

E

47

57

58

1C

59

5

4

59

3

59

2

59

1

59

4

62

60

1

62

3

62.

2

62

LAKKONDAHALLI

1

49

2

48

48

1

5

45

45

2

1

45

44

40

4

43

1

41

3

1

39

4

5

6 0

03

19

04

0

65

07

0

60 0

07

28

81 0

11

0

12

39 0

45

02

0

09

17 0

15

99

04

0

46 0

08

98 0

04

85 0

03

0

02

71 0

09

16 0

15

33 0

00

48 0

03

58

36 0

04

0

04

68 0

03

44 0

03

69 0

05

43

00

0

83 0

05

68....

0

00

48 0

06

38 0

06

66 0

02

16 0

04

00 0

02

26 0

04

55 0

04

32 0

06

40 0

01

04 00

0

16 0

11

43 0

31 03 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1676

3

2

1

5

39

2

38

1

38

31

28'

4

27

3

27

1

26

25

Hobli : Sulibele

166

KAMBALIPURA

167

168

169

170

3

40

HASIGALA

1

40

3

39

2

39

1

174

2

174

3

174

1

32

31

2

24

25

3

26

27

5

28

1

28

7

4

2

4

3

3

2

169

1

169

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

6 4

5

49

03

0

28 0

04

04

23 0

11

08

0

48

07

0

50

05

0

01

57 0

09

91 0

07

0

51

04

09 0

79 0

05

00

75 0

02

52 0

61

03

0

29 0

02

43

01

0

95

02

0

26

08

0

0

02

24

01

64 0

54

02

0

15

05

0

30

09

0

34

03

0

03

71 0

01

57 0

76

02

0

70

01

0

17

01

0

06

02

0

23

02

0

88-

04

0

06

95 0

90

05

0 भारत का राजपत्र: सार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ ) )

3

2

168

120

1

122

123

4

124

112

1

127

2

127

3

127

4

127

1

109

128

1

130

2

130

3

130

4

130

3C

132

1C

132

3D

132

3B

132

10

132

1B

132

2

132

2

146

2

142

1

142

2

143

P1

139

P2

139

P3

139

P4

139

P

108

KAMMASANDRA

1

67

4

68

2

78

818GL/07-12

1677

6

5

4

01

89 0

02-

92 0

03

46 0

79

03

0

25

02

0

64 0

03

57

04

0

47

00

03

08

43

09

000

00

53 0

70

00

0

37

00

0

10 0

00

01

56 0

42

02

0

73 0

04

05

03

0

32

10

0

50

06

0

58

02

0

27

14

0

54

74

0

11 0

00

19

00

0

87

00

0 1678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

3

2

1

Taluk : Devanahalli

District: Bangalore Rural

44

Hobli : Channayapatna GANGAVARA -

1 CHOWDAPPANAHALLI

44

2

44

3

44

4

46

45

42

41

31

32

3

32

4

30

32

1

4

5

2

5

1

2

6

6

1

7

15

16

13

1

17

1

18

2

18

1

20

12

3 SOMATHANAHALLI

7

140

141

11

141

4

141

8

141

3

142

137

136

148

149

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

5

4

6 State: Karnataka

0

95

06

0

07

61

06

0

78 0

04

28 0

03

60 0

06

78 0

01

56 0

04

92 0

02

96 0

05

31 0

01

60 0

04

12 0

05

87 0

01

36 0

04

57 0

12

08

0

06

31 0

08

34 0

06

08

05

67 0

0

07

09 0

06

56 0

05

67 0

07

69 0

10

20

01

0

51

16

0

99 0

00

10 0

03

15 0

18

72

12

0

40 0

11

41 0

47

76 0

51

06 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

3

2

1

63

JONNAHALLI

2

KAGGALAHALLI

34

BATRAMARENAHALLI

33

27

25

24

23

26

5

12

5

6

3

2A

6

152

2B

6

1

10

2

10

3

10

4

10

5

10

21

KAVADADASANAHALLI

18

19

Taluk: Yalahanka

District:Bangalore Urban Hobli : Jala

21

DHUMMANAHALLI

20

19

39

40

1

8

UNASURU

2P1

8

2P2

8

2P3

8

109

108

-107

106

105

5

1679 4

5

0

75

22

13

85 0

03

69 0

14

79 0

28

16

0

15 0

00

02

79 0

99 0

00

95 0

09

31 0

14

28 0

07

69

02

0

00

38 0

87

13

0

73

0

28

74

16

0

16 0

04

State: Karnataka

18

08

0

88

19

0

81

12

0

10

00

0

37

28 00

35 15

05

28 0

16

10

0

95

06

0

07

57 0

00

50 0

14

18

0 1680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

3 1

2

4

7 UNASURU ( contid..)

2

4

4

1

113

88

MYLANAHALLI

26

1

26

2

116

18

14

19

6

2

6

1A

6

1B

5

1

2

3

2

4

110

3

43

5 CHIKKANAHALLI

43

1

44

2

26

2

26

3

26

1

27

2

27

1

28

4

28

3

28

1

29

2

29

1

30

2

30

1

31

2

31

1

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

5

4

6 0

07

73 0

01

94 0

02

79 0

00

78 0

05

34 0

24

89 0

24

50 0

08

22 0

28

87 0

20

60 0

10

94 0

07

62 0

05

08 0

16

65 0

07

15 0

07

37 0

05

33 0

01

09 0

03

77 0

12

48 0

05

25 0

09

71 0

07

82 0

04

63 0

03

29 0

03

88 0

02

00 0

03

42 0

03

59 0

-03

21 0

03

93 0

02

38 0

01

41 0

06

61 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजमत्र : मार्च 24, 2007 /चैत्र 3, 1929

1681 1

2

3

4

5

6 BEGURU

90

2

0

08

09

95

2

0

04

71

95

1

0

05

14

94

0

06

24

100

1

0

14

80

101

Q

2

04

76

101

1

0

13

46

84

0

16

17

17

84

2J

85

0

11

53

[F. No. R-25011/3/2007-0.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

शहरी विकास मंत्रालय

मई दिल्ली , 21 मार्च, 2007

का. आ. 850.- भारत सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा शहरी विकास मंत्रालय के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन आवास और नगर विकास निगम लि० (हडको) के गोवा विकास कार्यालय , जहां 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को राजभाषा (संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 (यथा संशोधित 1987) के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अंतर्गत अधिसूचित करती है ।

[स. ई-11017/3/2005- हिन्दी] एम. राजामणि , संयुक्त सचिव Ministry of Urban Development

New Delhi , the 21st March , 2007

S. O. 850.-The Government of India in pursuance of sub rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for Official purposes of the Union ) Rules, 1976 (as amended, 1987) hereby notifies Goa Development Office of HUDCO under the administrative control of the Ministry of Urban Development , where more than 80% of staff have acquired working knowledge in Hindi .

[No. E - 11017/3/2005 -Hindi] M. RAJAMANI ,Jt. Secy .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1682

AWARD

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2007

The following reference was received from the Government of India vide their order No. L- 12012/394/91- IR B- II dated 10th April, 1992 :---

"Whether the action of the Management of PNB Ludhiana in dismissing the services of Shri Raj Kumar Duggal S/ o Shri Niranjan Dass , Clerk-cum -Godown Keeper w.e.f. 14-7-1988 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?" का.आ. 851.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 545/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/394/91- आई.आर. ( बी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 27th February , 2007

S.O. 851. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 545/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh 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 27-02-2007 .

On a notice from this Tribunal, the parties appeared through their Counsel . The workman filed the statement of claim . He also placed on record the copy of the judgement passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class , Ludhiana and copies ofa number of letters which he claims were written by him to the Management and the Inquiry Officer , appointed by them. The Management filed Written Statement , to the claim of the workman , through their Authorized Representative on 13th August , 1993. The workman then filed the rejoinder and an application seeking a direction to the Management to produce the documents detailed therein . In support of his claim the workman filed his affidavit dated 16th December , 1993. The Management filed the affidavit of S /Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma , Manager . They also placed on record the copies of documents marked as Annexure I to Annexure 18. The workman appeared as awitness whereas the Management examined S/Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Manager and Balbir Singh as their witness .

[No. L - 12012/394/91 - IR (B- 11 ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT II , CHANDIGARH

PRESENT :

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 545/2k5 Registered on 23-08-2005 Date of Decision 10-12-2006

Raj Kumar S/ o Shri Niranjan Dass Duggal , R/o 320-A, Model Town , Ludhiana ...Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank , Ludhiana ....Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Shri B. N. Sehgal , Advocate

For the Management : Mr. R. S. Chib , Advocate

The claim of the workman is that he had joined the service of the Management as Clerk- cum-Godown Keeper atGiddarbaha , District Faridpur on 20th July, 1970 and served them at different places till 11th August, 1997 and he was last posted at Kesarganj - Ludhiana Branch of the Management . There he was served with a charge sheet dated 29th / 30th August. 1997. The Management also lodged FIR against him in Police Station Piar, Distt. Ludhiana which resulted into a challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class , Ludhiana. However he was acquitted of the charge by a judgement dated 8th January , 1985 . Thereupon he reported , to the Manager of his Branch , but he was not reinstated on duty . On 21st February, 1986 he received a letter from which he learnt that an inquiry has been initiated against him and for which Mr. Malwinder Singh has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer and the inquiry shall commence w.e.f. 11th April , 1986 at Doraha Branch of the management Bank. Meanwhile he was reinstated in service vide letter of the Additional Manager, Ludhiana dated 29th December, 1986, which he received on 18th February , 1987 and he reported for duty on the next day . That , despite his objections , the inquiry proceeded against him and he was given a show cause notice on 23rd June , 1988 , alongwith the copy of report of the inquiry ; that he was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 13th July, 1988 , against which he filed an appeal before the General Manager who modified [ भाग 11-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929.

1683 theorder ofdismissal to termination from service with three months salary . The claim of the workman further is that the order ofholding inquiry against him and awarding him the punishment of dismissal or termination from service was illegal , bad in law and against the principle of natural justice .

which added to the burden ofthe workman and as a result ofwant of resources he could not produce the relevant witnesses . The Management also failed to provide the required documents arid record vital for the just decision. A fair opportunity to defend himself was denied to the workman . The 13 documents as detailed in the Claim Petition which according to him were vital for the just decision in the inquiry were not supplied to the workman.

The workman has challenged the enquiry report , the order ofdismissal/termination from service on the grounds that charges levelled against him in the inquiry were the same which he faced in the case before the Judicial Magistrate First Class , Ludhiana, therefore , he could not be tried for the same charges twice ; that the inquiry was started years after his acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, it was with an extreme biased mind that the inquiry was conductedby an officer who was lower in rank to that ofthe Presenting Officer and so acted under his influence which resulted in unfairness to the workman ; that the Presenting Officer had conducted a number of inquiry whereas the workman ; was not conversant with legal process and despite his repeated request to get the assistance of a lawyer he was not provided with the facility nor he was given the permission to engage a union representatives ; that the Management produced Shri R. K. Aggarwal as witness against the workman who had also been chargesheeted alongwith the workman, for the alleged occurrence, in Doraha Branch, but the charge sheet against him was withdrawn later on as he had been assured no action can be taken against him in that case he deposed falsely against the workman.

It is further claim of the workman that the Judicial Magistrate did not rely upon the statement of R. K. Aggarwal and held that Shri Aggarwal himselfwas negligent in his duties in the alleged occurrence , therefore , his statement cannot be relief upon. The Management further acted in unfair manner by withholding material witnesses, who were present in the Branch where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. The Management also did not provide opportunity to the workman to cross - examineMr. C. L. Gupta, who had served the workman with a charge sheet dated 29th August, 1997. He was also not provided with the addresses of the persons who were linked with the charge sheet and the addresses provided were incorrect and it resulted into miscarriage ofjustice to the workman. TheManagement further made the lapse by not filing report of the investigation and by not producing the persons as witnesses who were examined in the preliminary inquiry . The Inquiry Officer being employed in the Bank was an interested person to help the Bank. The Management also did not allow the workman to produce his defence . Therefore, the workman could not defend himself properły. The Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority knew that workman remained on leave from 22nd to 25th March , 1997 and they relied upon the vouchers of those dates alleged to be preparedby the workman; that the Management did not pay the expenses of the defence mechanism for theday the Inquiry Officer was not available,

The workman has challenged the findings of the Inquiry stating that the Inquiry Officer was predetermined in his mind to convict the workman as he knew that the sole purpose of initiating the inquiry proceedings against the workman was to dismiss him from service. According to him the Inquiry Officer had relied upon the Written Statement ofthe Presenting Officer despite the objections. of the workman. He was also not provided with the opportunity to cross - examine Shri R. K. Aggrawal , after production of additional documents of by the Presenting Officer which were linked with the inquiry. The Inquiry Officerdid not allow the production ofdocuments named by the workman stating that those are not relevant to the charge sheet, but later on those very documents were allowed to be produced by the management and were also relied upon in the inquiry . The Inquiry Officer further committed the lapse by relying upon the statement of Shri D. P. Dhanda, which he had made in reply to the charge sheet. The reliance of the Inquiry Officer on that statement wasbad since the statement was relevant only to the charge sheet filed against Mr. Dhanda . The relevantdocuments were not shown to the witness . Thus the reliance of the InquiryOfficer on the statement of Shri D. P. Dhandawas also bad. The denial of the specimen writing of Shri Aggarwal was bad since the workman wanted the opinion ofhandwriting expert about the writing of Shri Aggarwal which also resulted in the denial of the opportunity to the workman to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer did not allow the workman to make a statement in his defence . He ignored the statement of Shri G. L. Katrari who statedthat the activities of Shri Aggarwal were wrong against the instructions ofBank. The Inquiry Officer misconstrued the statement of Shri J. P. Soni and ignored the statement of Rakesh Kumar who certified that Mr. Soni was a genuine person . As against to that the Inquiry Officer relied upon the statement of Shri Aggarwal , which was full of contradiction, fabrications and a biased, for the reason thathow could he identify the writing ofthe workman when hecould not identify the writing of other employees posted in the same Branch . How could he make the payment to him meant for Mr. J. P. Soni ifhe had bad impression ofthe workman. In that situation how could he have good faith in the workman and make the payment. Shri Aggarwal made contradictory statement. On the one hand he stated that he has made the statement as per his memory but in the same breath he claimed that he had made the statement on the basis of the FIR lodged against the workman . Не 1684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

be quashed the workman may be reinstated in service and be provided with all the benefits including that of promotions . He may also be allowed interest at the rate of 18% on the monetary benefits he is found entitled and cost ofproceedings .

further made a wrong statement that , it was I who made the signatures of Mr. J. P. Soni and he was posted on Kesarganj Branch . Shri Aggarwal was further wrong to state that it was the workman who had worked on the F.D. seat whereas he had never worked in that seat nor there was any occasion for the workman to prepare the vouchers presented during the inquiry relating to F.D. Accounts , for crediting to SF No. 5479. Further , Shri Aggarwal admitted to have prepared vouchers 177 and 178 relating to the entry of Rs . 3000/ - , in account No. 5479 , although those vouchers were not passed by a competent authority and it showed that Mr. Aggarwal was interested in the account of Shri J. P. Soni . Shri Aggarwal further made a wrong statement that he had never tried to check the presence of Shri Soni in the Bank, although the seat of Mr. Aggarwal was just 3 yards away from the seat of the workman . He himself admitted that he never asked the workman to produce Shri Soni to receive the payment and all that showed that Shri Aggarwal was interested in the transaction in the account of Shri Soni . Shri Aggarwal further made a false statement that he always mentioned in the Cashier's log Book about the name of account and not of the person who received the payment. He also could not explain why he did not report about the overwritings in the account when he calculated half yearly interest of SF 5015. Moreover there was excess of interest shown in the account and so as to cover up his lapse he did not mention about the alterations . The Inquiry officer therefore acted in a very unbecoming manner by ignoring questionable documents and relying upon the statement of Shri S. K. Aggarwal which were not provided to the workman and thus the principles of natural justice were not followed.

The management has opposed the claim of the workman by raising preliminary objections as well as by disputing the facts stated in the Claim Petition . It is stated by them that the workman cannot claim to be represented by Shri B. N. Sehgal , who is a practicing Advocate and not amember of any Trade Union . Besides the management has not consented to the appearance of Shri Sehgal , as such he may be barred from appearing for the workman . It is also their claim that the points raised by the workman were not raisedbefore the Inquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority , therefore, the same cannot be allowed and raised now . According to the management, the claim of the workman that after a criminal trial the inquiry could be initiated against him , is without any merit for the reason that in the case of Para 19-3 ( 3 ) of the Bi -partite settlement , the holding of departmental inquiry is the option of the management , whether simultaneous to the criminal trial or thereafter on merit it is claimed by them that the workman was served with the charge sheet on 29th August , 1977 , for having committed grave and serious irregularities , fraud by preparing fictitious vouchers of interest and by withdrawing money from the Bank by forgery signatures and by impersonation . The workman, by his letter dated 30th August, 1977 admitted the charges as true . The Criminal Court no doubt, acquitted the workman but by giving him the benefit of doubt. The Management had the option to proceed against him , therefore , an inquiry was initiated against him . During the inquiry charges 1, 3 , 5 and 6 were proved against him and the Disciplinary Authority passed a detailed order , after giving personal hearing to the workman , and confirmed the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer . He proposed the punishment of dismissal to the workman and issued show cause notice to him on 23rd June , 1988. The workman preferred an appeal . The Appellate Authority, Zonal Manager , after taking into account all the aspects of the case and due consideration , did not agree with the workman and dismissed his appeal . He, however, reduced the punishment ofdismissal to that of termination of services with three months ' salary and allowances as per the bi- partite settlement .

In reply to the averments made in the Claim petition it is stated by the management that the claim made by the workman is not correct except the fact which are a matter of record; that the Disciplinary Authority had given full consideration to all the facts brought on record and after affording the workman the opportunity ofpersonal hearing, he was awarded with the punishment of dismissal from service, which was modified by the Appellate Authority on appeal . Claiming that the Management was authorized The workman has further challenged the inquiry proceedings on the ground that he was not given a personal hearing by Disciplinary Authority . He was also not given sufficient time to make effective representation and the undue haste was shown by the authorities which spoke about their mind , otherwise they had waited for nine years to initiate the inquiry and for two years after his acquittal bythe criminal court . Repeating the grounds taken by him , he alleged that the Inquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not act according to the law and principles of natural justice rather they acted in a manner which clearly suggest that nojustice could be expected of them . The Management relied upon the letter dated 30-08-1977 , the authorship of which had denied but the Management further failed to obtain the opinion of the Handwriting expert about the letter . The Management also did not produce letter dated 30th August , 1977, nor any proof to show as to who had received/ produced that letter and who received it . They did not provide a copy ofthat letter to the workman . The workman has further claimed that the inquiry report is. based upon conjectures and summarizes and upon false statements of Shri R. K. Aggarwal , therefore , it is bad in law and should भारत का राजपत्रः मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 3929-0

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii)]

documents . Denying that the bisnagaowent has taken into consideration the statement of Bhoi Dhunday made verlier they stated that all the documents, wem provided to the workmoan.ThenThe workman did not nok for the handwriting of Shri Aggarwal at the time: Shri Magarwal appeared as a witness TheMockoman, cathar had einde this claimed the close of tia exidence and notat the time Με Λαρτεναί mas in the witness fachu It was in these circunstanong that the Inquiry Olliest thought that the claim tande by ako weckman was that honefused the prayor of the worloman,

!

Chế tình thất đức có lideration was given to all the النادي evidence placed on record it is stated by the m that the statestatemetuannants of Shri P. R. Kali na R. K. Diggi weregiven full co eration. The workman had fully crom- examined the witnesses ofthe managof thể mình ch chỉ ít tốngth . Hind the inquiry officer not given weightage to the evidence produced in the case, howh น someแบบ กรอof the changes should be held not proved. The workman was not shown là tờ at when and how the principles of natural justice were vialmed. He was given no instance to support that clain. They live further claimed that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority areare speakingspe orders based on the record of the evidence produced. The objections raised by the workman are after thought . Had all these objections were in his ne in his mind he would have Haliod the same efore the Disciplinary Authority, as wellfatheas the Appellate Authority. In view of the evidence available the workman has no claim to pake , thất thể brbet oftinh mà đồn was bad in law violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, itit ould be quashed. HeHe isis not entitled to any reljef.

toholddepartmental inquiry, against the workman, for the misconduct and irregularities committed by aim it is stated by them that the workman had been sequitted by the Criminal Court , However since it took time to the management to obtain the copies of the judgements and waiting for the state to go in appeal , that the Management initiated inquiry proceedings late. Bet there was no bar to that. There was also no reason to term the same as biased approach. k is further their claim that the departusental inquiries were governmedby Rules and Regulations ofthe Bank and principles ofnatural justice and not on the basis ofprocedure laid downby law. Moreover, the inquiryofficer was not law knowing person but the principles of natural justice were taken care during the inquiry. It was the duty oftheworkinen to have looked for a defence representative and it was not the Hability of the management to arrange for the same for the workman . The management produced the witnesses which they thought were relevant to the inquiry proceedings and they did not prevent the workman to proceed his witmess: The Management produced the witnesses which theywere having the knowledge offacts having hoaring on the charge. They further claimed that the workman had never raised the pica that he was not provided with the correct addresses of the witnesses, required to produced by the management . It was the duty ofthe workmanto have produced his own witnesses. The management had produced only relevant documents. The management had provided full opportunity to the workman. He never claimed to get, any witness or the documents to be produced in his defence and his claim is without merit that he was denied the right to defend himself properly. The inquiry officer took all the aspects of the case into consideration and relied upon material, brought on record, so as to give the finding. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority considered the evidence available on record.

The claim ofthe workman has been opposed by the Management by raising the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the application of the petition and by rebutting the contents of his Chim Polition. It is their case that the Claim thade by the Workchain tobalised that there is no merit in the Chain of the wondhan chát thực Nhungentent could not initiate the inquiry agebat him whereas the provisions ofBl- partite scholliant morte spooffitsilly para 19 of it authorizesthe holding of deparkiriental Bfairy In View of this the claim of the World 16 Hot ind therefore , the same may be quastied

On merits it is the submission of the Managerment that since the workman was inyolyed in committing stave and serious irregularities , which resulted into fraud perpetuated upon the Bank, thanoforn, A FIR was registered against him. It is true that the workman was given the benefit ofdoubt and acquitted, but itit was no bus for bolding departmental inquiry, therefore , den inquiry was initinged against him .Howas, chargo shooted and an inquiry officer was appointed. After holding fair pad proper inquiry, the inquiry officer found charges 3,5 and 6 and change No. 1 , to scano extent proved, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority, after giving personal hearing to the workman , awarded the It is further the claim of the Management that there was no obligation on the management to bear the expenses ofwitnesses ofthe worknran . It was the discretion of the hiquiry officer to allow or disallow the production and documents, that the objections new raised, but the workman were not raised before the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority and are an afterthought . Denying that the Inquiry Officer was pre determined to convict the workman or he was not impartial and fair, it is statedby them that the finding of the inquiry are based upon the evidence brought on the record. There was no war of appearance of the Presenting Officer as a witness in the case and he was thoroughly cross -examinedby the workman. The workman was allowed to callany witness in support of claim inchiding Shri Aggarwal. The Management hadproduced some documents so as to confront with that to the defence witnesses , when they made false statement and it was only in that situation the documents weretaken on record. The workman was free to make use ofthose

816G1/07-13 1686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

inquiry, therefore , some documents were produced so as to confront them with the true facts and the workman was provided with full opportunity , so as to put further question to those witnesses . The claim of sending the handwritings ofShri Duggal to the handwriting expert is afterthought as he did not raise this plea at the time when the statement of Shri R. K. Aggarwal was being recorded. Contesting the manner in which the workman had explained the evidence producedby the Management , it is stated by them that the management had held a fair and proper inquiry. The objections now raised by the workman are of no substance rather the same are afterthought . The inquiry officer had given full weightage to all the evidence produced and had appreciated the statement of the witnesses and came to the conclusions . The Disciplinary , as well as the Appellate Authority applied their mind and passed speaking orders . The workman in fact has no reasons to challenge the conclusions of arrival at by inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority and the points raised are not relevant and therefore the same may be rejected. The workman may be penalized for unnecessary raising the controversy . In the last they prayed for allowing them to lead evidence in the case to prove that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were proper and the inquiry held was fairandproper.

punishment of dismissal from service to the workman on 23rd June, 1988. The workman filed an appeal to the Zonal Manager, who also , after giving personal hearing to the workman maintained the order ofthe Disciplinary Authority, but reduced the punishment to termination with three months salary and allowances , as authorized by Para 19.3 (c) oftheBi-partite settlement . The Management admitted the contents ofpara i , iii , v, vi, viii in full and of paras iv, vi and ix in part but denied the contents of para xi describing the same as misconceived , disgust and unformulated . It is submitted by them that the inquiry was conducted against the workman after the judgement in the criminal case and sometimes were taken in collecting with certified two copies ofjudgements on the record it was because of that reason some delay was caused in initiating the inquiry proceedings but there were no other reasons for initiating the action late . It is further stated by them that it was not the duty of theManagement to arrange the defence representative for the workman . Their liability could add the best was to facilitate the workman in engaging the defence representative of his choice . Opposing the claim of the workman that the Management did not produce others who were witness to the alleged incident it is submitted by them that it is always the option of the party to produce the witnesses , they think relevant for their purpose and not those which the employee proceeded against wished to be produced . The workman was at liberty to produce any of the witnesses in his defence , if he thought that a person was a relevant person and the Management could not stop him from doing so . Moreover, the workman did not raise this point during the inquiry nor requested the Inquiry Officer to summon any other person as a witness in the inquiry therefore , his claim is not justified. Same can be said about the documents produced.

The workman filed replication by which he submitted that the preliminary objections raised by the Management untenable were since Shri B. N. Sehgal was also a legal secretary of Employees Union and so he could appear as the representative of the workman ; and that he was entitled to raise the objections against the manner the inquiry was held, as the same was not considered during the inquiry ; and that there could be no difference between acquittal and acquitted by benefit of doubt , therefore , the inquiry waswrongly held; that the workman was entitled to raise the objections against the manner the inquiry was held since the Management had not considered the reply given by him running into ten pages and again for the denial of personal hearing to the workman by the Disciplinary Authority.He reiterated the facts stated in the Claim Petition and stated that he had never admitted the charges nor had written the letter dated 30th August, 1997 ; that since the management had waited for 8 years to the outcome ofthe criminal case , therefore , they should have relied upon the outcome of the criminal case whereas they did not do so with malafides , and in violation of principles of natural justice punished him . The order of punishment , therefore , deserves to be quashed . Also for the reason as the Management did not provide him the documents of the workman upon which they relied and took the action; that the Management with vindictive attitude took two years to reinstate the workman and did not pay him the wages . They did not supply him the copies of the documents nor he was given opportunity of personal hearing ; that the inquiry officer had worked under the whims of the The further case of the Management is that the workman was provided with full opportunity to produce any evidence, oral or documentary and to defend himself in the inquiry. There is nothing on record to show that the workman evenraised the finger against the manner in which the inquiry was conducted nor the workman had the grievance that he was not provided sufficient opportunity to defend himself. According to them it was not the obligation of the Management to pay expenses of the defence witnesses . Moreover the workman never raised any objection about the competency of inquiry officer to hold an inquiry . He also did not raise the said objection against the disciplinary and has taken up this stand for the first time. They have also obtained that there was no bar for the presenting officer to appear as a witness in the case. The Inquiry Officer had to held fair and proper inquiry . He had allowed the workman to produce anybody as a witness in his favour. Explaining the circumstances in which some documents were not produced initially , but were produced lateron , it is stated by them that since the defence witnesses had started making false statements in the [भाग II-खंड 3(ii ) ]

1687

भारत करपात्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

Management therefore, this finding was biased. He prayed for quashing the order of his dismissal and for his reinstatornientwith all service benefits, including continuity ofservices , alongwith the interest of 18%.

Managonmesit niso produced Bulbin Bindhues their witness who adatitted the contents of binaffid M-2 and stated that the documents attacheckwith tha affidavit pre correct as per the originak and that the counts : of the inquiry proceedings are correct la festher statod that he has brought the original voucher of Fixed Deposit ledger and fixed deposit open close reffiter and that the copies of the voucher produced are correct as per the original . In cross examination he stated that he has hot brought the original of these documents since those are lying in the Regional Office , and that the inquky offical , is still alive andin the service of the Management. le sented the knowledge ofthe crimicriminal case instituted against the workman and stated that the inquiry had started after the decision in the criminal case .He, however, could not say whether Shri Aggarwal, who was witness in the inquiry was also a witness in the criminal case against the workman . He admitted that, Shri Aggarwal was also chargement for his negligence, in the same incident, for which the workmanwas charychargesheeted . However , the charges leveled against Shri Aggarwal were different . He denied the knowledge that Shri Aggarwal and Duggal had constrained relations but admittednitted that they were the two officials working in the Branch, He showed ignorance whether the workmanwas on leave from 23rd to 25th March, 1997.He furtherT stated that the workman was calledcalled for file his statement andwas also askedasked to give hishis writtewritten arguments; and that the original vouchers were not prepared in his presence.He denied that the inquiry officer had not given full opportunity to the workmanto defend himself.

Ihavegone through the file and have alep ponsidered. the arguments submitted by the Counsel for the partics.

Theworkman filed his affidavit in support ofleis claim.... Management filed the affidavit of Shri Suresh Kumar, Manager in support of their claim. They also placed on record anumber of documents as Annexure Ist to 18. They also filed the affidavit of Shri Balbir Singh, their Senior Manager, alongwith documents Annexure Ist, comprising of i 17 pages. The parties produced oral evidence in support oftheir claim: The workman appeared as a witness whereas the Management produced M/ s . Suresh Kansar Sharma: and Balbir Singh as the witnesses . Shri R. K. Dugged, the workman by his statement proved his affidavit Wel and documents W- 2 and 3 in cross examination he admitted that he was served with chargesheet on 29th August, 1997, towhich he had filed the peply on the next date . That the Management had initiated inquiry against him in which Malwinder Singh was appointed as inquiry officer whereas Shri Dalbir Singh was Presenting Officer. He admitted that he had cross -examined the witnesses of the management but claimed that he could not do the cross-examination then properly, He had produced defence evidence. He admitted that the Inquiry Officer had granted him the adjournments as and when he asked for that and that he had signed the proceedings on 22nd and 25th May, 1997; and that after the inquiry, he was served with a show cause notice to which he had replied, Opportunity for personal hearing was given then stated that he was not given the personal hearing. However, he admitted that he had filed the appeal and the appellate authority had given him personalhearing.He had modified the order of punishment. He claimedthathe is dependent upon his relatives including his elder brother. He however showed lack ofknowledge whether the expenses incurred by his brother are shown byhim inthe income tax returns but claimed that he is not working; andthat he has wife and three children. He denied that he is running an academy earning around 10,000 a month by tuition.

TheManagement produced Shri Suresh Sharmawho proved his affidavit, Exhibit M- 1 , and stated that the documents filedwith the affidavit are correct though the samearephoto copies . He stated in cross-examination that he had not taken part in the inquiry proceedings but he has the knowledge about the allegation, the chargesheet and the inquiry proceedings being custodian of the records. He denied that the workman is not gainfully engaged since theday ofhis dismissal rather he is running an academyin Ludhiana and is earning but he can not name the academy. He further stated that Annexure 3 dated 30th August, 1977 was not signed by the workman in his presence; and that the original record may be in the Regional Office, Chandigarh.

This is the casecase of domestic inquiry intnquiry in which the workman was chargesheeted and on the report of the inquiry officer theDisciplinary Authority awarded him the punishment of dismissal from service, but on appealat the order ofdismissal was converted into termination with three months salary w.e.f. 14th July, 198814th July, 1988. The worknaam has challengedthe order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority, on a number ofofgrounds stated in briefhis grievance is that the Inquiry held against him was bad in law since it was hold eight years after the alleged occurrence for misconduct forming part of charge sheet against him before the criminal court, that the toyinquiry officer did not allow the workman to produce defence witnesses named by him. He relied upon the statement of Shri Aggarwal , who was co - accused in the cha মত leveled against the workman and accordin to thế thể management prevailed upon Shri Aggarw statement against the workman, on a promise to fine him from the charges. It is further bis claim that the inquiry officer velied upon the statement ofthe PresintingOfficer, much against the principles of naturel justice. The Disciplinary Authority did mat give pomitud hearing to theworkman. The Mangomast also did not pradunothe [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1688

alleged confessional statement of the workman, to support their claim . The workman was not allowed to produce the handwriting expert as a witness so as to test the veracity of statement made by Shri Aggarwal . Also the copies of inquiry proceedings were not provided to the workman.

witnesses of the Management during the inquiry. Не however alleged that he could not properly cross examine the witnesses of the Management without showing as to why.Whether the management was responsible for that or it was his own lapse or inability to do that. Ifwe look at the inquiry proceedings , we find that the claim made by the workman is not clear and justified. The manner the workman cross -examined the witnesses of the management shows that very searching questions were put to the witnesses which perhaps is an advocate of standing would have missed to put . Thus the claim of the workman that he could not properly cross examine the witnesses of the management is not true and justified . The workman might have been prompted to say so after knowing the result of the inquiry proceedings .

Itmay be noted here that in a domestic inquiry the Tribunal has a limited jurisdiction to exercise as it cannot substitute its opinion to that of the Disciplinary Authority or that of the Appellate Authority so far it concerns the conclusions on facts . The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that even the High Court does not enjoy the jurisdiction to reappreciate and come to its own conclusion on facts . According to their Lordship the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are the sole fact finding authorities . Once the finding of the facts based upon the conclusions of these authorities are recorded, theHigh Court in the jurisdiction may not normally interfere withthose factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were perverse and/or legally untenable. In this regard the reference can be made to the judgements ofthe Apex Court reported as 1999 ( 1 ) S.C.T. 642. The law is, therefore, settled that in a case of domestic inquiry , the Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority . At the best it has the jurisdiction to examine whether the two authorities followed the procedure laid down by the standing orders , rules and notification and also followed the principles of natural justice while holding the inquiry. In other words whether the workman was informed ofthe exact charges which he is called upon to meet; whether he was given opportunity to explain any material relied upon by the management to prove the charges , whether the evidence of the Management was recorded in the presence ofthe workman and he was given full opportunity to cross examine those witnesses ; whether the copies of the documents relied upon by the management were provided to the workman and he was also permitted to inspect any ofthe documents relied upon by the management, whether the employee both documentary and oral evidence in his defence and whether he was allowed to examine himself as awitness and was also provided the assistance to produce the material and relevant documents the employee desired to produce; and whether he was provided with a copy of the inquiry report and was allowed to make the representation to the Disciplinary Authority against the findings ofthe inquiry report . In order to find out whether the Management followed these basic requirements of the fair and proper inquiry, we have to go to the evidence of parties a summary of which has given above.

Theworkman further admitted that he had produced his defence witness and whenever he sought adjournment itwas granted by the inquiry officer ; and that he had signed on the inquiry proceedings on 22nd and 26th May, 1996 . He further admitted that he was provided with the findings of the inquiry officer and was also served with a show cause notice, to which they have submitted the reply; and that he was also afforded the opportunity of personal hearing.He however immediately denied that he was given the opportunity of personal hearing. In the same breath he still admitted that he had filed the appeal and the Appellate Authority had given him the personal hearing who had modified the punishment awarded to him . Thus we find that from his own mouth the workman has shown that he was provided with all the facilities to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings , although the finding of the inquiry went against him . The allegation , now made by him , as noted above is that the Management had not conducted the inquiry properly ; and that he was not provided with opportunity to produce the witnesses in his defence or that the Management had relied upon the statement of Shri R. K. Aggarwal , who was a co - accused with him in the same incident . In my opinion the grounds taken by the workman against the findings of the inquiry are after thought and without any merit . It is true that the inquiry was initiated against the workman , after the conclusions of the criminal trial initiated against him for his alleged misconduct . It has generally been seen that the delinquent official claim that civil proceedings should not be initiated against them till the criminal proceedings initiated are not concluded, for the reason , that in the civil proceedings their defence gets disclosed . I think the Management acted very fairly, ifthey did not initiate inquiry proceedings against the workman during the time the criminal trial against him was going on . Otherwise , under rules , they could have initiated the proceedings . The delay in initiating the inquiry , in my opinion, was for the benefit of the workman and not against his interest.

It is true that the inquiry officer refused to summon some witness as prayed for by the workman and I have The workman in his statement admitted that he was served with the chargesheet and he has filed reply thereto. He further admitted that Shri Malwinder Singh was appointed as"Inquiry Officer and Balwinder Singh as Presenting Officer, and that the inquiry officer had no personal enmity with him . That he had cross - examined the 1609

भारत का समचत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/ चैत्र 3, 1929

the punishment awarded to him as modified by the Appellate Authority, was just and proper arid. was not disproportionate to the misconduct preved against him, during the inquiry. Therefore , the workman has no case . The reference made is answered in the terms that theorder of the management PNB , Ludhiana, in dismissing the workman from service, which order was later on modified to termination of the services of the workman, with three months notice w.e.f. 14th July, 1988, was legal andjustified, therefore, the workman is not entitled to any retter.The reference is answered against him. Let acopy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate gevt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरारी , 2007

examined his order dated 7th March, 1987, Justification given by him was weighty enough as there was no reason for the workman to have summoned the inquiry officer who had chargesheeted Shri Aggarwal as there could not be any relevancy to the proceedings initiated against the workman andthat initiated against Shri Aggarwal . Similarly there was no justification for the workman to have summoned the officer who served the suspension order on him as the question of placing the workman under suspension is not disputed by any of the parties. The Inquiry Officer, by same order issued clear direction to the PresentingOfficer to provide the addresses of Shri C. L. Gupta, Shri V. P. Dhanda, Shri B.R. Sethia and Shri Harbhajan Singh, to the workman Shri Duggal as desired by him besides that of P. N. Punj . The Inquiry Officer further allowed Shri Duggal to appear as a witness as his statement was relevant to the inquiry. He rightly recorded that it was the duty of the workman to have produced his witnesses . He, however, cautioned the workman not to delay the procedure. From the order ofthe Inquiry Officer, it cannot be made out that he had not allowed the workman to produce hiswitnesses . The Inquiry Officer only desired that the workman should not delay the proceedings .

का.आ. 852.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) कीधारा 17 के अनुसरण में केद्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कार्यकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 26-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/46/1997-आई.आर. (सी- II) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th February, 2007

S.O. 852. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publiskes the award (RoferenceNo. 90/1998 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 1 , New Delhi 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 by the Central Goverament on 26-02-2007.

No.: L-22012/46/1997 -IR(C-II)]

AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 90/98

In the matter of dispute between:

Smt. Panti Devi wife of late Shri NandLal , Through The General Secretary,

Delhi LabourUnion ,

AggarwalBhawan,

Theworkmanhimself contradicted his claim, when , in his statement, he admitted that he had been provided with the capy ofthe inquiry report and further stated that he had signed the inquiry proceedings , as were held on 22nd and26thMay, 1996. There is no merit in his claim that the management had not allowed him to produce handwriting expert as his witness . On record I do not find anyevidence to the effect that the workman had ever made such a prayer . The workman though alleged that Shri Aggarwal was enamical but he failedto show anything, by any evidence or even by putting questions, in the cross examination , or by giving suggestions to Shri Aggarwal that both were not in good terms . To claim that the management had influenced Shri Aggarwal to state against the workman, is also without any basis as neither in the evidence nor till the final hearing in the case, the workman has been able to show that as a result ofhis having obliged the management, to state against the workman, that Shri Aggarwal was given such and such benefits by the Management. The workman has failed to show as to how he meets the charges which were mainly based upon the record of the management Bank and which record was allegedly proparedby him . The workman has referred to a number of authorities in support of his claim. I have gone through these authorities and do not dispute the findings, but in my opinion but the facts of the present case are different and the authorities do not fit in the facts of the present case.

G.T.Road,

Tis Hirari,

Workman

Delhi-54.

Vetsus

After going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that it was the case where the Inquiry Officer conducted himself in a fair and proper manner. The workman was provided with' full opportunity to defend himself and 1690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

TheManager ,

F.C.I. , 17, Prabhat Kiran Building, Rajendra Place, New Delhi- 110008 .

....Management APPEARANCES :

None for the workman .

Shri Hans Raj Toondwal , Manager Legal for Management .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/46/97 - IR( C - II ) dated 18-3-1998 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in denying the employment to Smt . Panti Devi , the wife of late Shri Nand Lal is just and fair ? If not , to what relief the concerned dependent is entitled ? " 2. In response of the notice workman filed statement ofclaim and respondent management filed written statement whichwas followed by rejoinder . Thereafter the matter was posted for admission denial . After admission denial of documents the matter was posted for workman evidence for the first time on 15-4-2004 and the matter was thereafter adjourned on subsequent hearings for workman affidavit on 16-6-2004, 9-9-2004, 24-11-2004, 22-2-2005, 12-5-2005, 21-07-2005 , 24-10-05 , 12-1-2006, 4-4-2006, 14-6-2006, 24-8-2006, 22-11-2006 and today 14-02-2007 for cross- examination of the workman . The workman is also not appearing for the last 3-4 hearings since 14-6-2006 onward. Perusal of record thus shows that the workman has failed to make himself available for his cross - examination despite so many adjournments and he has not been appearing since 14-6-2006 as mentioned above . It appears that the workman is not interested in contesting his claim which raises presumption that the workman does not dispute correctness of the reference . Hence no dispute award is accordingly passed . File be consigned to record room.

Further it is ordered that the requisite number of copies ofthis award be forwarded to the Central Government for necessary action at their end .

SANT SINGH BAL, Presiding Officer Dated: 14-2-2007 .

नई दिल्ली, 26 फरवरी, 2007

का.आ. 853. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जोधपुर

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-22012/135/2001- आई. आर. (सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th February , 2007

S.O. 853. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 2/ 2003) ofthe Industrial Tribunal , Jodhpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 26-02-2007 .

[No. L-22012/ 135/2001 - IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer.

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जोधपुर पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री पुष्पेन्द्रसिंह हाड़ा, आर.एच.जे.एस. औद्योगिक विवाद ( केन्द्रीय ) संख्या 2/2003 रामचन्द्र पुत्र श्री मोतीलाल तंवर मार्फत विधि सचिव, एफ.सी.आई. कर्मचारी एण्ड श्रमिक यूनियन , मिलगेट 516, सुभाष नगर, ...प्रार्थी पाली ।

बनाम

जिला प्रबन्धक, भारतीय खाद्य निगम, पटवारी भवन, कचहरी रोड़, अजमेर । अप्रार्थी रेफरेन्स अन्तर्गत धारा 10 औ. वि. अधिनियम, 1947 उपस्थिति:

( 1 ) श्री भागीरथ चंदौरा , प्रतिनिधि प्रार्थी

(2) श्री महेन्द्र त्रिवेदी, प्रतिनिधि अप्रार्थी

अवार्ड

दिनांक 29-11-2006

1. भारत सरकार ने अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. 22012/ 135/2001 आई आर. ( सी. II ) दिनांक7-6-2002 द्वारा निम्न विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 के तहत इस न्यायालय को रेफर किया है :-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Ajmer in not giving same and similar wages and other benefits at par with regular employees to Shri Ram Chandra S/ o Shri Moti Lal Tanwar , casual worker is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ? " [भाग II-सखंड 3(ii) ]

169

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

गया, 1-6-08 को उसे सेवा से पृथक किया सफाईम्स के अवार्ड दिनांक 15-9-1992 में कराना में उसे दिनांक 12-8-1990 कोपुनः कार्य पर लिया गया । प्रार्थी के अनुसार उसका कार्यश्री अार्थी के अधीन कार्यरत अस्प केन ही था, उसके एवं उसके साथ कार्य करले कलेन्सकों के कार्य की प्रकृति व कार्य में कोई अन्तर नहीं है परनामे में है अतः -समान वेतन सापक काम के सिद्धांत के अनुसार यह भी सामन उभ - प्रतिलाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ।

7. इस संबंध में प्रार्थी ने अपनेोहराते हुए यह कहा है कि कार्यर्थी कर्मीका अन्य नियमित श्रमिक श्री संत्रा में कार्यरत में के अनुरूप वेतन व लाभ दिये जाते रहे हैं , नियमित श्रमिकों का कमेरा कार्य सम्रान था, लेकिन मुझे दिये गये वेतन में भिन्ना है, मुझे काफी कमः वेतन दिया गया । जिरह में इस गवाह ने ग्रहा ।कहै कि मैं आकस्मिक श्रमिक के पद पर था, मैंने जब का कार्य किय वयका भुगतान कर, दिया गया, कोई यसि बकाया नहीं है । चतुर्थ श्रेणी के पद पर नियुक्ति का पत्र नहीं दिया, पी.एफ , ई. एस.आई नहीं काटा गया, मेरा नाम उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में नहीं था अन्दर आकर तार होता था, मुझ से कनिष्ठ किसी आकस्मिक श्रमिक को स्थाई श्रमिक के बराबर वेतन दियागया हो, उसका नाम नहीं लिखा, में अभी चक्की पर काम करता हूँ, चक्की मेरी है ।

2. क्रर्थी द्वारा अपना मांग-मक इस माशय का पेश किया गया है किप्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के अधीन प्रथम बार 5-1-84 को चतुर्थ श्रेणी के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ.जिसे 1-6-88 को अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा सेवा से पृथक करदिया, जिसके संबंध में औद्योगिक विवाद उठाया गया, जो औधोगिक विवाद सं. 2/87 के रूप में दर्ज हुआ तथा जिसका अधिनिर्णयदिनांक 15-9-1992 को पारित किया गयाण प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति को अनुचित माना गया व पुनः सेबा की मिरास्ता में सेवा में पुनस्र्स्थापित करने व समेकित रूप से 7000 रुपये की सशि पूर्व भर्ती के रूप में दिलाई गई, अप्रार्थी द्वारा 7000 रुपये की राशि तो प्रार्थी को दे दी गई लेकिन सेवा में पुनस्र्थापित नहीं किया गया । प्रार्थी वतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी था व उसके समान ही अप्रार्थी के अधीन अन्य श्रमिक भी कार्य करते थे जिन्हें अप्रार्थी द्वारा निर्धारित वेतन श्रृंखला के अनुरूप वेतन एवं लाभ दिया जाता रहा, प्रार्थी व अन्य सहायक श्रमिकों के कार्य की प्रकृति एवं कार्य मेंकोई अन्तर नहीं है लेकिन दिये जाने वाले वेतन में भिन्नता है अतः प्रार्थी विधिक प्रावधानों एवं विधि द्वास प्रतिपादित सिद्धांत के अनुसार अमान वेतन समान काम के रूप में निर्धारित एवं निश्चित लाभ एवं प्रतिलाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है । प्रार्थी को 15-9-1992 के अंवार्डकी पालमा में 12-8-98 को सैक में पुनस्र्स्थापित कर दिया, प्रार्थी द्वारा सेवा समाप्त किये जाने की अवधि तक का वेतन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के वेतन समान काम समान वेतन एवं अन्य परिलाभ प्राप्त करने हेतु प्रकरणा सहायक श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) के समक्ष प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें समझौता नहीं होने से यह प्रकरण इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया गया । अतः प्रार्थी को उसके द्वारा नियमित कर्मचारी के समान कार्य किये जाने की अवधि का वेतन समान काम समान वेतन के सिद्धांत अनुसार दिलाया जावे ।

8. अप्रार्थी की ओर से जो साक्ष्य दी गई है उसमें श्री डी. सी. जारोटिया ने बतायाहै कि प्रार्थी को फैजुअल कान के लिए लगाया गया था, वह कभी- कभी काम पर आता था, प्रार्थी व अन्य श्रमिकों की कार्य कीप्रकृतिमें अन्तर था, समानता नहीं थी, इसी प्रकार योग्यता व नियुक्ति प्रक्रिया भी प्रार्थी व अन्य क्रर्मचारियों की अलग- अलग भी ।

9. प्रार्थी द्वारा ए.आई. आर. 1987 (एस.सी. ) 2049 व ए.आई.आर. 1988 एस.सी. 517 के आधार पर यह तर्क लिया गया है किभले ही प्रार्थी को आकस्मिक श्रमिक के रूप में नियोजित किया गया हो तब भी वह बराबर वेतन पाने का अधिकारी है । इस संबंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 2006 एल.एल.जे. ( 1 ) , एस. सी. * 431 जिसमें भी इसी प्रकार का विवाद दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों व नियमित चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारियों के सम्बन्ध में था, में इस प्रक्रार निर्णित किया गया है :-

3. अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब में कहा गया कि प्रार्थी को 5-1-1984 को आकस्मिक कर्मच्ची के रूप में दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के पद पर नहीं रखा गया वह निरन्तर सेवा में नहीं रहा, 1-6-86 के पश्चात् प्रार्थी स्वंय ही अपने कार्य पर नहीं आया उसने कभी भी लगातार 240 दिन कार्य नहींकिया, प्रार्थी को कभी भी सेवा से पृथक नहींकियागया, प्रार्थी का कार्य चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी का नहींथा, प्रार्थी को अम्य श्रमिकों के समान वेतन देने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता, प्रार्थी के कार्य व अन्य श्रमिकों के कार्य की प्रकृति एवं कार्य में अन्तर है, प्रार्थी आवश्यकता अनुसार कार्य की उपलब्धता होने पर जानकारी कर स्वंय उपस्थित होता रहा है जबक़िअन्य श्रमिक नियमित रूप से लगातार कार्य करते चले आ रहे हैं इसलिये वेतन में समानतासम होने का प्रश्न ही नहीं उवता, 15-9-1992 के अवार्ड की अक्षरशः पालना कर दी गई है । प्रार्थी किसी प्रकार का लाभ व राशि अप्रार्थी से प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

4. मांग- पत्र के समर्थन में प्रार्थी द्वारा स्वंय का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया जिस पर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी 'की ओर से डी.सी. जारोटिया कर्का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गयाजिस पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा जिरह की गई ।

5. दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधिगण की बहस सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया ।

"The application of the principle of" equal pay for equal work requires job consideration ofvarious dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may enthilmay differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume ofwork. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. Thus, normally the applicability of this principle mustbe left to beevaluated and desermined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ Court carn lightly interfere. " ...

6."यह तथ्य विवादित नहीं है कि प्रार्थी को 5-1-1984 को अंप्रार्थी द्वारा दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में नियोजित किया

10. माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 2006 (T ) एल.एल.जे. 431 में यह निर्णित किया गया है कि ऐसे प्रत्येक केसे में न्यायालय को [PART II SHC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1692

जावे । 16. इस अवार्ड को प्रकाशनार्थ भारत सरकार को प्रेषित किया अपने आपको यह आश्वस्त करना चाहिये कि एग्रीब्ड कर्मचारी द्वारा यह भार डिस्चार्ज कर दिया गया है कि कार्य व कन्डीशन बराबर है (पैरा 18 ) ।

पुष्पेन्द्र सिंह हाड़ा, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2007

का.आ. 854.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हाई एक्सप्लोसिव फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

11. प्रार्थी द्वारा जो साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत की गई है उसमें अलावा इसके किमेरे व मेरे साथ कार्य करने वाले नियमित श्रमिकों का काम व कार्य की प्रकृति समान थी, अन्य कोई विवरण कार्य के सम्बन्ध में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है । प्रार्थी की ओर से इस तथ्य को अस्वीकार किया गया है किदोनों का कार्य समान है बल्कि यह बताया गया है कि प्रार्थी को आवश्यकता होने पर दैनिक कार्य कराया जाता था इन परिस्थितियों में यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि प्रार्थी का कार्य व सेवा शर्तों के सम्बन्ध में आवश्यक तथ्य प्रस्तुत करने का जो भार उस पर था उसे डिस्चार्ज किया है ।

[सं. एल -14011/1 /2004- आई आर ( डी यू) ] एन . एस . बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th February , 2007 12. माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा हरबंसलाल बनाम हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य 1989 II एल. एल.जे . 466 में यह निर्णित किया है कि दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक न्यूनतम वेतन प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी हैं नकिउसी प्रकार के नियमित कर्मचारियों की पे स्केल में न्यूनतम वेतन । माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारियों के सम्बन्ध में इस प्रकार निर्णित किया गया है :

S.O. 854. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal , Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of High Explosive Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-02-2007.

[No. L- 14011 / 1 /2004- IR(DU)] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. S. VYAVAHARE, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PUNE

REFERENCE (IT) No. 46/2004

BETWEEN

The General Manager ,

FirstParty

High Explosive Factory, Khadki, Pune .

AND

"The respondents , therefore , in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts . Daily rated workers are not required to possess the qualification prescribed for regular workers , nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as rigorous . There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily- rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore , be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages . Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay scale of the regularly employed ."

Second Party

Their Workmen

In the matter of:

13. इस प्रकार प्रार्थी न तो यह सिद्ध कर पाया है कि उसका कार्य व सेवा शर्तें नियमित कर्मचारी के समान थी व जैसा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त निर्णय में निर्णित किया गया है कि दैनिक वेतन कर्मचारियों की नियमित कर्मचारियों के समान वेतन " इक्वल पे इक्वल वर्क " सिद्धांत के आधार पर नहीं दिलाया जा सकता । अतः प्रार्थी इस आधार पर किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

Reference regarding the action of the management in denying the payment of wages for extra hours of work beyond normal working hours in a week and beyond the normal working hours to Shri P. Subbarao and 10 others as perAnnexure attached u/s . 59 of the Factories Act , 1948 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date ?

14. उक्त विवेचन के अनुसार इस रेफरेन्स का उत्तर इस अवार्ड की टर्म्स में निम्न प्रकार दिया जाता है :

APPEARANCES :

Smt . B. M. Kadam , Advocate for the First Party. Smt . N.G. Gohad , Advocate for the Second Party.

15. अप्रार्थी निगम द्वारा नियमित कर्मचारियों के बराबर वेतन व अन्य लाभ प्रार्थी को न दिया जाना उचित व वैध था । प्रार्थी किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है । [ भाग II- खंड-3(ii) ]

1693

भारत का राजपत्र : मोर्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

AWARD

the Conciliation Officer ended in failure , by present reference the Second Party employees have claimed overthine wages as per Sec . 59 of the Factories Act-and have also claimed interest at the rate of 18%.

1. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by Clause(d) of sub -sec. 1 ofsub- sec . 2(a) of Sec . 10 of the I.D. Act, the Desk Officer of the Central Govt. has referred the said dispute to the undersigned for adjudication . The dispute referred by the Central Govt. is as under:

"Whether the action of the management of High Explosive Factory , Khadki in denying the payment ofwages for extra hours of work beyond normal working hours in a week and beyond the normal working hours to Sh . P. Subbarao and 10 others as per annexure attached U/s . 59 of the FactoriesAct, 1948 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from which date?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , notices were issued to First Party and Second Party. The Second Party has submitted his Statement of Claim at Exh: U-2; whereas First Party has resisted the same by filing its Written Statement at Exhibit C-5.

4. The First Party has resisted the claim by filing its Written Statement at Exh. C- 5 wherein , it is contended that, claim of the Second Party is false , frivolous and not based on true facts. The First Party has denied all adverse allegations made by the Second Party employees andhave denied the claim, made by the Second Party employees . While admitting the fact that, the appointments were issued tothe SecondParty employees by the General Manager of First Party, the First Party submits, that, the Second Party workmenwere appointed for D.S.C. platoon . Moreover, the very appointment ofSecond Party workmen is of non- industrial nature. The Second Partyworkmen who are well aware ofthis fact, are also aware that , the D.S.C. platoon attached to H.E. factory are not dealing in production activities but, D.SC. platoon is not registered under Factories Act. The D.S.C. Personnel are not civilian and theyare paramilitary and military petsottiiel . Accordingto the First Party, theD.S.C. Detachment platoon is a separate unit. It is also the contention of the First Party that, the Second Partywerkmen who are required towork atD.S.C. platoon only are reporting ander Commanding Officer of D.S.C. platoon. It is further contention of the First Party that, the pay and allowances ofthe Second Party enmployees are similarto the Central Govt. employee. However, the payment of overtime is being made to Second Party employee as per Ministry of Persomel, Public Grievances &Pension (Deptt. As personnel and training) which is also known as D.O.P.T. Rules. Therefore , according to the FirstParty, as the Second Party employees are attached to D.S.C. Detachment which is totally'a separate unft muchless not registered urider Factory Act and as the Second Party employees are getting overtime wages as per D.O.P.T. Rules, there is noquestion to payovertime to Second Party workmen as per Section 59 ofthe Factories Act . The First Partytherefore, prays to reject the claim

5. On the respective contentions of the parties , I have framed following issues at Exh . 0-8. IssueIssue No. 1 is recast. Myfindings are recorded against the same .

ISSUES &

FINDINGS

1. Whether S.P. is entitled to claim overtime wages as per Sec.59 ofthe Factories Act ?

..NgNo

Does not survive

2. Whether Second Party is entitled to get imesest ?

3.What order ?

As per final order

6. REASONS

: 3. It is the contention of Second Party employee that, they are in the employment of the First Party as a permanent workmen having being appointed by the General Manager ofthe First Party. The factory of the First Party is situated at Kirkee, Dist : Pune . It is the contention of the Second Party that, High Explosive Factory (H. E. Factory) comes under the Ministry ofDefence for the protection of the said factory. The Ministry of Defence has made arrangement of Defence Security Corps Personnel (hereinafter called D.S.C. platoon) . The D.S.C. Personnel are not civilian personnel but, they belong to paramilitary or military personnel. The said Defence Security Corps Personnel is a permanent sanctioned unit attached to H.Е. factory. The General Manager of the H.E. factory is duty bound to provide all services like cook, sweeper, barber für D.S.C. Personnel . According to the Second Party employee , they being employees of the First Party, the General Manager of H.E. factory has diverted their services to D. S. C. Platoon . The Second Party employees are claiming their employment since patty long time. It is their contention that, they are required to work for 9 hours in a day. It is further contention of the Second Party employee that, the workmenwho are discharging the work similar to Second Party workmen in H.E. factory and who are required to work for 9 hours in a day are getting overtime as per Sec. 59 ofthe FactoriesAct. However, the Second Party employees who are given appointment by the General Manager of H.E. factory and who are the employees ofH.E. factory, have been made exception and they are denied the benefit of overtime . Inspite of representation and negotiations , the First Party has refused to give overtime to the Second Party employees as per the Factories Act. Therefore , the Second Party employees referred the dispute before the Conciliation Officer . As the conciliation proceedings before

Before going through the evidence on record, it wil not be out ofplace to go through some of the facts which 816G1 /07-14 1694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

are not seriously disputed . It is admitted position that, the Second Party No. 2 is an employee of H.E. factory; whereas the Second Party workman No. 11 is not claiming any relief. The learned Counsel for the Second Party has given her No Objection to delete the name of Shri . L. M. Reddy .

7. It is also admitted position that, the appointment orders of the Second Party workmen are given by the General Manager of H.E. factory . It is also admitted position that, the Second Party workmen are attached to D.S.C. detachment i.e. D.S.C. platoon. It is admitted position that, the Second Party workmen are permanent workmen and have been serving with First Party since petty long time. The date of initial appointment of Second Party employees mentioned in Annexure " I " is not disputed.

8. ISSUE NOS . 1 AND 2 :

In view of above admitted facts , in order to show that , Second Party workmen are entitled to get overtime as per Sec . 59 of the Factories Act, the evidence of one S/Shri P. Subbarao , Ratanlal Pardeshi and Shivnath Kanojiya is recorded at Exh . UW - 1 , UW - 2 and UW- 3 . On behalf of the First Party , the evidence of Shri Radhakrishnan Pillay and Shri Avinash Tarathwadkar is recorded at Exh . CW- 1 and CW- 2 . The Second Party workmen examined by the Second Party are working as a Cook and Washerman respectively . Through their evidence they have mainly tried to bring on record that. the General Manager of H.E. factory have appointed them and though they are required to work in the hostel of D.S.C. Corps , they are required to work from 7.30 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. They have also stated that , other Second Party workmen who are also working at D.S.C. Platoon are required to work similar to their working hours but, they were not provided with the facility of over- time . They have also stated that , the person working in canteen of First Party as well as on the Inspection Bungalow are getting over-time , though they are doing similar type of work to the work of Second Party workmen . Even then , the over-time isdenied to them and Second Party workmen.

9. As against this , Shri Radhakrishnan Pillay and Avinash Tarathwadkar have tried to bring on record that, the Second Party workmen are not industrial employee and they are appointed for D.S.C. platoon . It is also triedto bring on record that , the D.S.C. platoon deals in work of security guards , boundaries of the factory . These two witnesses have also stated on oath that the Second Party workmen are not dealing in production activities and D.S.C. Platoon which is a separate unit has its own separate rules for payment of overtime . They have also stated that, D.S.C. Personnel are not governed under Factories Act and they come under defence rules . These two witnesses have stated that, the Second Party workmen are getting overtime as per D.O.P.T. Letter dt . 18--4-91 issued by Ministry of Personnel PublicGrievances & Fension ( Deptt. of Personnel Training) , New Delhi and therefore , the Second Party workmen are not entitled to get over - time as per Sec . 59 of the Factories Act.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 10. Now, from the respective evidence adduced on record, it is seen that , the First Party have admitted in the cross -examination that , they do not know which rules are applicable to them for over -time allowances . The First Party employees have stated on oath that, the Second Party employees are getting over - time as per D.O.P.T. Rules . A question has been put to witness-Avinash Tarathwadkar as to whether he is ready to produce D.O.P.T. Rules . However, no suggestion has been given to any of the witness of First Party that , the Second Party workmen are not entitled for getting over - time as per D.O.P.T. Rules . ExhibitC- 13 is a xerox copy of letter issued by Jt . Director ofAdministration to Director General which speaks that, paras 3 and 4 of D.O.P.T. O.M. are not applicable to the factory establishment . Clause Nos . 1 and 2 of the said letter shows Class III and Class IV employees of Group ' D' i.e. Cook, Khansama, Chowkidar, Water Carrier , Mali , Barbar, Dhobi are paid over- time allowance as per D.O.P.Τ. Ο.Μ. dt. 29-3-1991 . Though it is true that , the original D.O.Ρ.Τ. Rules are not produced on record by the First Party, even then, from the cursory glance of Exhibit C- 13 , it is seen that , D.O.P.T. Rules are not applicable to the factory establishment .

11. During the course of arguments , the Learned Counsel for the Second Party workmen has strengthenly submitted and argued before me that , the Second Party employees are the employees of factory/establishment because they have been given appointment letter by the General Manager of H.E. factory . Moreover , their services are transferable from one H.E. factory to other H.E. factory throughout India. It is also submitted that, the Second Party workmen have been provided attendance card by the First Party . While taking me through the appointment order of the Second Party employee, it is submitted that , it is nowhere mentioned in the appointment orders that the Second Party workmen are required to work at D.S.C .. Platoon and they are attached to D.S.C. Platoon and therefore , it is strengthenly submitted that, the Second Party workmen who are given appointment by the General Manager of H.E. factory , therefore , will have to be considered as an employee of factory/establishment and therefore, they are entitled to get over- time allowance as per Sec . 59 of the Factories Act .

12. After giving conscious thought to the submissions advanced by Smt . Gohad, Learned Counsel for the Second Party , it is seen that , though the appointments were given to Second Party workmen by the General Manager of H.E. factory , it is not disputed that , the Second Party workmen have been working at D.S.C. attachment since their date of appointment . It is nowhere brought on record by positive document that , the Second Party workmen are also required to work on their respective post in the H.E. factory. Though it has tried to bring on record that , D.S.C. Platoon is part and parcel ofH.E. factory , these submissions of Smt . Gohad devoids any merit [भाग II-खंड 3(ii)

* भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचवार ( संदर्भ से आर/227/89 ) को प्रकाशित 2007 को प्राप्त हुआ 1997.Альдавла

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2007

SiQ.855. In pursuance of Sections of the Industrial Disputes katy:01947: (14061942) ; the Debut ) مز Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CO LC/R/227 /89) of the Central Government indunding Tribemak cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Ashawarin the Industrial Dispute between the samployers in relation to11 . the managempat of SecurityPaper Mill, Hobinogabad aritko their workman, which was received by the Contrabi Govensmant en27-03-2007moshin, ende noirt

No.142011 /33 /1988- D- 2(B) ] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUS Pres JABALPUR

because the appointment ofD.SC. Platoon is carried out from the Military Personnel much less by the Ministry of Defence . The D.S.C. Detachment Platoon being paramilitary and military personnel are only dealing in protection ofthe factory andthe said D: S.C . Platoon itself does not deal in manufacturing activities . Though it is true that, the protection on the part of D.S.C. Platoon has a nexus with production of Aminunition, even then, the fact remains that, the protection work on the part of D.S.C. Platoon cannot be equated with production activities , One more thing, which requires consideration that the D.S.C. Platoon is not registered under Factories Act because of not registering .S.C . Platoon under Factories Act and as D.O.P.T. Rifles are considered for payment ofover- time, for D.S.C. Personnel , the claim made by the Second Party employees for over-time U/s . 59 ofthe FactoriesAct, cannot be considered even remotely . It is true that, workmen who are doing similat type ofwork that of Second Partywho are attached to H.E. factory are getting over-time but, it must be borne in mind that, the very place where they are working is registered under Factories Act and therefore, the contribution off their part has been considered as direct or indirect attempt for the purpose of production activities. Therefore, to my mind, though the submissions advanced byMrs.Gohad though apper to be interesting are definitely not convincing.

1

Ne: OGIT/LC/R/227890

Shri C. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

hot3orit છે?gainnensq

The Gerteral Secretary, as

S.P.M. Employees Idnion, niis te bere

Phase II, 8.P.M. Colony, minu vihetoral - se

Workisen/ ionats

Hoshangabad droom

Versus risd

TheGeneralManager,

SecurityPaperMill,

Hoshangabad

nagement 13. One more thing which is significant to note that ,.. while claiming over- time sind in order to show entitlement for getting over-time U/s . 59 of the Factories Act, though the Secofil Party workmen has stated that, they are entitled to get since their date of appointment, there is no iota of evidence in respect of details of over-time done by any of the Second Partyworkmen since his date ofappointment. Therefore , even assuming for the sake of arguments that , the SecondParty workmen are in the employment of the First Party for want of details in respect of over-time allowance, the claim of Second Party workmen for over- time that too U/ s . 59 of the Factories Act cannot be considered. Itherefore, decide Issue No. 1 in negative and hold that, Issue No. 2 does not survive. Hence , order.

Passed on this 7th day ofFebruary, 2007 ORDER

1. Reference is answered in negative.

2. Parties to bear their cost.

nent of India, Ministry ofLa 1. TheGovernment o ofLabour vide its Notification No. L-42011 /33/88- D)-2 (B) Uned3-11-89 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

PUNE

Dated: 2nd Feb.2007

S. S. VYAVAHARE, Industrial Tribunal

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2007

is

"Whether the demand ofthe SPM Employees Union (INTUC), Hoshangabad for payment ofofwages tothe daily rated employees at par with the regular employees by the management of SecurityPaperMill, Hoshangabad is justified ? Ifso, to what relief the workmen are entitled

का.आ. 855 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिक्यूरिटी पेपर मिल, होशंगाबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

2. The workmen are the members of SPM Employees Union and the Union is representing their case in this reference . All the persons whose name, designation and 1696.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (i)]

The daily rated and casual employee are also entitled for overtime wages at the double the rate of wages . Whenever a daily rated employee is unable to perform some work even for a few hours because of reasons beyond his control , his wages are proportionately cut whereas in the case of regular employee , the same is treated as leave and no wages are cut . The daily rated employees are also entitled to leave benefit and for absence which are authorized and sanctioned by the management, there should not be any cut in wages as far as daily rated casual employees are concerned. When a daily rated employee takes a short leave or on leave for one day, he does not get any paid weekly day ofrest . This discrimination is not justified. The workmen are performing the duties since long period, they are not getting any benefits of increment or contributory PF. The employees working on regular basis are extended to this benefit and every year they get increment and benefit of pay fixation . Apart from this benefit , HRA , City Compensatory Allowance , Night Shift Allowance and all other allowances are not being extended to the casual and daily rated employees . It is , therefore , prayed that the tribunal be pleased to hold that the action of the management of Security Paper Mill in not giving wages and other benefits to daily rated employees at par with regular employee is unjustified and all the daily rated employees working in Security Paper Mili , Hoshangabad are entitled to payment of wages and other allowances and benefits at par and equal to what is being paid to regular employee of the Security Paper Mill .

3. The management contested the reference and filed other details are given in Annexure -A to the statement of claim are working as mazdoors /casual labours or casual paper boys w.e.f. the date and other details as mentioned in Annexure -A . Even though all the workers are working since a very long period , they are shown as casual employees and their services have not been regularized . The workmen are working in various sections of theMill and ever since their appointment, they have been paid only wages at the rate fixed by the Collector. No other facilities as are being given to the other regular employees ofthe Mill are being given to the workmen .All the workmen are doing the same identical work which is being performed by other regular employees of the Mill . But as far as giving benefits to the workmen are concerned , they are not getting anybenefit apart from wages fixed by the Collector . Looking to the nature of duties which the workmen are performing, they are entitled to the same wages and all other benefits which are being paid to regular employees who are similarly situated like the workmen . The workmen have a fundamental right to receive the wages and other benefits as the work being discharged by them and regular employee are exactly similar and the action of the management of Security Paper Mill in givingdifferent treatment to the workmen and regular employees amounts to discrimination and is violative of articles 14, 16 & 39 of the Constitution . Looking to the nature of duties performed by the workmen and the constitutional right accrued to them , they have right to receive the wages of an unskilled grade as they are performing the duties which are being peformed by other unskilled workers . The right to receive wages of an unskilled grade is an existing right given to them by law and therefore the action of the management in not giving them the above wages is totally unjustified and contrary to well established principles of law . Amongst others the following benefits which are being given to a regular employee working in the Mill are not being extended to the workmen . The benefits to which regular employees are entitled are as under :---

I. Payment of wages fixed, pay scale which is higher than the wages given to the workmen.

II . Wages are paid on monthly rate basis , whereas in the case of the casual employees , it is made on a weekly basis .

III . No leave facilities such as Casual Leave , Earned Leave , Sick Leave , Compensatory Leave etc. as are being paid to regular employees are not given to the workmen .

V. The workmen are also entitled to similar leave benefits as is being given a regular employee .

their WS . Their case in brief is as follows . That a similar. subject matter of these workers at Sl . No. 1 to 58 given in Annexure-A . The present statement of claim is already pending for decision before this Honourable Court vide No. CGIT/LC( C) 157/88 seeking relief under Sec- 33 (C)(2) and that on the same subject the case under Sec- 10 of the I.D. Act may not be proper . It is, therefore , prayed to the tribunal to tag this petition under Sec - 33 ( C) (2) with the case as the order of this case would be automatically binding in the above referred case also . The principle of equal pay for equal work is not attracted in this case and it is not a fit case for the court to give its direction . The Security Paper Mills , Hoshangabad is an Industrial Unit directly owned by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Economic Affairs , New Delhi . The Mill has started as a project in the year 1961 and was commissioned in the year 1967. The Mill produces security papers for printing currency and Bank Notes . The Mill has its organizational chart ,Group - A , B , C & D and unclassified industrial workers . The workmen do not belong to these categories but are engaged as casual mazdoors / paper boys . Due to increased demand of currency and Bank Note Paper inthe country , the Security Paper Mill was modernized and commissioned in 1983. The rated capacity of the pre- modernised Mill was 3,400 M. Ts per annum and the rated V. Whenever a regular employee performs overtime . he is paid wages at double the rate for the extra work performed by him . However in the case of casual and other daily rated employee overtime wages is paid at a single rate.

16973 [ भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजत्रत्र: भार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

1-1-89. As per the above OM , the werkmen listed in Annexure-A other than those 45 persens already regularized, are being given pas paid woudly offat को days ofcontinuous wirk. In addition , they ate also being paid for National holidays if it falls on working day. Ther aboveOlvi dated 7-6-88-clearly states at para (a) " all sligible casual workieredare stijasted sugálint regular posts to the extent sech regular posts are justified , Italo Rathoretatis at pura (b) that "rest ofthe casual workerende overed by (a) above and whose rétention is consédered absolutely necessary and is in accordance with the gallicat we paid emoluments strictly in accordance with lebiguidelines " Under the cirombstances explainedabove, it is denied that theworkmen are entitled to receivenery beaufits maket for. in the application . The claim of dieUndow has no band forsi foundation and is, therefore, denied se tise wadomesdisted in Annexure-A other than thise 45 persoas alrondy regularised are not getting leave, they can avall only holidays, noDesiness Allowancejetcy mail they are getting all facilitiesus are applicable to shoh casini simpjwydes They are being paid at the rate of 1 /30th of the piny at timb minimum ofthe relevant pay scale plus Douane Allpivance ! for work of8 hours a day one paid wibblly off after six dity of continuous work, and in addition they are being whic for National Holidays, if it falls on a working day. The managersont respectfully subiritted that the applicationof the Union is premature, frivadous , misconceived sad deserves to be disastedet

4. I have heard Shri A.A. K. Shashi , AdvocateAdvocate for the workmen/Union and Soit. Kanak Singh Gahara forthe management.

capacity ofthe modernized Mill is 6000 M.Tper annum .As a result of the modernization of the Mill a number of additional posts were expected and the workmen were engaged on casual basis is anticipation of regular vacancies . The casual employees were being paid at the rate fixedby the District Collector for such employees . The commissioning ofthe improvedplant after modernization wascompleted in August 1983 and the job evaluation , re- categorisation,etc. of the modernized Mill was received from theExpert Committee viz. M/s. IBOON Pvt. Ltd.Bombay and in normal course necessary additional posts , revised grades and scales were expected after an agreement was reached between the union and the management on the report ofthe Expert Committee, But there was a lot ofdispute by theUnion regarding implementation of IBCON report,. the matter went at different stages of conciliation and negotiation with the Government which took nearly 2 to3 years. After prolonged negotiations the stalemate could be broken only in the month of December 1987 when an agreement was reached with the Union . The first thing that has emerged out of this agreement was that the IBCON report was not to be implemented, but a new body is to conduct the workstudy and accordingly National Productivity Council has been appointed on 1-6-1968 and the study was completed and the report was submitted and the same is under active consideration of the Government. As soon as report is implemented and the necessary additional posts are sanctioned, the eligible applicants would be regularized. However since filing this application, 45 casual workers listed has already been appointed on regular basis as posts become vacant due to reasons like retirement, death , resignation , termination etc. That whenever the vacant posts become available either due to implementation of National Productivity Council or otherwise the remaining applicants will be appointed on regular basis subject to fulfilling other conditions . Without prejudice to the above , the management also submits as follows:-

That there is qualitative difference between two sets ofemployees with regard to work hence principles ofequal work for equal pay is not attracted. The casual workers listed in Annexure -A other than 45 persons already regularised are working in various sections of the Mill . They are being engaged on casual basis , they were initially beingpaid at the rates fixed by District Collector . However the policy regarding engagement of casual workers in Central Government Office has been reviewed by the Government keeping in view thejudgement of the Supreme Court delivered on 17-1-86 in Writ Petition filed by Shri Surinder Singh and Others versus Union of India. The workmen listed in Annexure-A other than those 45 persons have been regularized are being paid as per item ( iv) of Government of India, Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and TrainingO. M. F. No: 49014/2/88-Estt. (C) dated 7-6-88 w.e.f.

5. Ihave very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record. Shri Shobhanim Patel workmen Unton's witsbar Diw: 1 deposed that he has beers appariatoda as mazdooncasual labour with 70 other personswho have also been appointed in the vinilne capheity. That albofthiem .. have been doing the same identical work which are being performed by the other besployees of the niill nature of duties being performed by them are exmetly similar to one performed by the regular employees and there is no difference between work being performed by himani 70 other casual mazdoors and the regular employes. This witness further deposed that they have been doing the same work before and after the regularisation. Management'switness No: 1 Shri N. Sahadevan Pillai during his . cross-examination admitted the date of appointment ? and post of the workers given in Ansinars M/L to the statement of claim. He deposed that these weekers-bind been employed as casual inbours and they all have been regularised now. That they all are in service this day. All06: them were regularised during the period of 1987 to 1989 Though alltheworkmen have been regularioenibut still in in tobe decided according to the terms of refugenotto whether the demand of the Union for payment of wageste thedaily rated employees at par with the regular eniplagos [PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

6. The learned counsel for the workmen/Union in support of his contention that the workmen are entitled to getwages at par with the regular employees since the date ofjoining has placed reliance on the following law:-

I. 1982 - SC-879

II . 1987 -AIR SC- 2049

III. 1994- LAB - IC - 741

IV. 1991 AIR -SC-1173

V. 1986-SC- 584

VI. 1988 ( 3 ) SCC- 354

The facts and circumstances in the law cited above at Sl . No. I to IV and VI are different than the facts and circumstances of this reference and therefore I am of the view that the said rulings do not apply in this case .

7. The learned counsel for the management in support ofher contention that prior to regularisation ofthe concerned workmen , they were appointed purely on casual basis and they were not appointed against any sanctioned posts therefore the concerned workmen cannot claim the regular pay scale prior to the period of regularisation at par with the regular employees . She placed reliance on the following law :-

I. (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 21

Ⅱ . 2006 ( 111 ) FLR-332

III . 2006 ( 4 ) SC cases - 1

IV. 2007 ( 112) FLR- 345 -SC

The law cited by the learned counsel for the management at Sl . No. 2 & 4 mentioned above mainly relates to the regularisation of the services of daily wagers and therefore are not of much help for deciding this reference . The law cited by the learned counsel for the management atSl .No. 3 above 2006(4) SC - cases - 1 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3 ) and others pronounced by the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is most befitting , appropriately and suitably applicable to the facts and circumstances of this reference . Out oflaw cited by the learned counsel for workmen/Union at Sl No. 5 above and law cited by the learned counsel for the management at Sl. No. 1 & 3 above . The following has beenheld therein by the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia :-

"In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages , be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service , with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed . The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of by the management is justified and if so to what reliefthe workmen are entitled ? It is very clear from the evidence of cross - examination of management's witness Shri N. Sahadevan Pillai that the casual mazdoors and the regular mazdoors do the same nature of work . It is also clear from the evidence ofthe above named witness that earlier casual employees were being paid at the rate fixed by the District Collector for such employees and the regular employees have been paid the wages in the fixed pay scale , DA and other benefit of pay etc. It is also clear that the following benefits have been extended to the regular employees which were not available to the casual employees or workers , such as wages in the fixed pay scale , DA and other benefits of pay, casual leave, sick leave , EL etc. Overtime wages , increments , PF benefits , HRA , CCA, Night Shift allowance etc. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workmen/Union that two classes ofpersons doing the same work under the same employer with similar responsibility under similar working conditions , attract the doctrine of equal pay for equal work . It has also been contended on behalfofthe workman/Union that notification dated 7-6-88 issued by Government of India , Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pension has been made applicable by the management and the employees under order of reference were paid pay scale of regular employees w.e.f. 1989 prior to their regularisation but the management has failed to pay the scale from the beginning . Against the above, the learned counsel for the management submited that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not attracted in this case. That due to exigency of work , the workman were engaged on casual basis in anticipation of regular vacancies and were being paid at the rate fixed by the District Collector for such employees . That according to report of National Productivity Council which was implemented w.e.f. 21-10-92 on the workmen who remained on roll of casual workers have already been appointed on regular basis as and when the post became vacant due to reasons like retirement , death during the period from Dec. 1987 to Aug. 1990. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the management that the casual labours prior to regularisation were working in various sections of the management on casual basis were being initially paid at the rates fixed by the District Collector, however the policy regarding the engagement of the casual workers in the Central Government office have been reviewed by the Government keeping in view the judgement of the Supreme Court and the concerned workmen cannot claim regular pay scale prior to the period of their regularisation which has been done as per law . It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the management that the legal right accrued to the concerned workmen only after regularisation which has been done as per law and the concerned workman prior to date of regularising their status -were as they were temporary appointed on work charge basis and could not be treated at par with the regular employees who were appointed on the basis of recruitment rules.

01699 [ भाग II खांड (ii) ]

bedecided as per the sference as to whether the

the demand of the Union forUnion for payment of to the rated employees atpar with the requ Jasypes

Cadre management is justified and if so towhat relict the workmen are entitled ?According to law balddo mrby the full banch ofHonourable Apes @ quentin 2006 (4)-SC Cases- 1, the daily wage earners shou'du'd be paid wages equal to the salary at thelower grade ofthe regular employeur of mealSkate in theservice fromthe date ofjudgetheat innd they are entitled to other allowances givanitatis adgalar orplaytics. Intis case,allthe workmen have been regulated sudutav they are gettingwages at parwithwith the earlier regularisedworkers. Hadtheynot been regularised in that case too, theworkmen would have been entitled to get equalde salary the lowestgrade ofthe regular employges oftheir cardboin the service from the date ofthe judgementjo, funthe date of award passed inthis reference. It is , therefoga, ponchbylad that the workmen are not entitled for the payment of wages at par with the regular employens ginge ghe date of their employment by the management of Security Paper Mill and consequently they are not entitled to anyany relief.The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference. The reference is answered accordingly .

Copy of the awand be amhas the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as por

C.M. SINGH, Prouding Officer

का. भा.856. औद्योगिक विवाद अभिनित 1947, ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसार आरके के योग के कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट और बौधिक પિ બેગ અદ્યાલય નાગપુર પચીસ ચોર મા 87/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 27-4-2007 त

:1:

[से. एल -12012/29 / 1998 ]

New Dethi , the 27th February , 2007 вычагарник Foqes 1

engagement. We find that the High Court had elearly gone wrong in directing that these: employeesbe paid salary oqual to the salary and allowances that arebeing paid to the regular employons oftheircadre in government service, with affect from the dates from which they are respectively engaged: or appointedIt was not opesinto the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether those employees were untitled to have equal pay for equal work so dalled and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also boon engaged in the seeth ofdirections not to do so. Wehre , therefore, of the view that at best, the Division Bench oftheHigh Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular empleybes be paid to these daily wange cimployees with effect from the date of its judgement . Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage camers be paidwages equal to the salary at the lowest grade ofemployees oftheir cadre in the commercial taxes departmentin government sebeice, from the date ofjudgesient of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage carriers , there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them in view ofour conclusion , that courts are not expected to issue directions for making such persons permanent in service , we set aside that part of the direction oftheHigh Court directing the Government to consider their cases for regularisation. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularisation or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court . In such a situation , the direction in that regardwill standdeleted and the appeals filed by the Statewould stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection . But when regular recruitment is undertaken , the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, wil be allowed to compete, waivingthe age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for asignificant period of time . That would be the extent ofthe exercise ofpower by this Court under Article- 142ofthe Constitution to do justice to them" .

S.O. 856.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1847 614 , of 1947), the Central Govemment hereby publishen the award. Bof. 67/2002, of the Gent Govt jobustria) Tribunaigum -Labour Count, Nagpur As shown in the Aanowns in the Andumtrial Dinguite betwoon the management of Bank of Minharashtra angl their workmen, received by the Central, Government.on 27-02-2007

2012/09/16 ) RAJENDER KUMAR, Desk Offiger 8. In the case at hand, it is admitted to the parties that all the workmen during the period 1987 to 1989 have been regularised, meaning thereby that all the workmen at present are getting the same wages and allowances and other benefits at par with the earlier regularised workers . Though all the workmen have been regularised still it is to 1700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

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

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/67 /2002

Date : 22-02-2007

Petitioner/Party No. 1

Shri A. B. Gaikwad , Daftri , Bank of Maharashtra , Banosa Branch , Tah . Daryapur, Amravati Dist .

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2

Bank of Maharashtra , The ChiefManager ,

(Personnel Deptt . ), CentralOffice, " Lokmangal" , 1501 , Shivaji Nagar, Pune -411005.

AWARD

[Dated: 22nd February , 2007 ]

successful having obtained 75 marks out of 125. However, his name was kept at Sr. No. 10 in the waiting list. The reply of the bank to his representation to the Chairman of National Commission for S.C. S.T. is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice . Its contentions that it has filled all the reserved posts of S.C. S.T. are contrary to the circulars of the bank . It has counted the successful candidates of S.C. S.T. Cadre alongwith the candidates of general cadre on the reserved post is contrary to the circular No. AXI/ST/BPS/CIR- 5 /96dt . 19-02-1996 .According to him as per list circulated on 07-11-1996 out of 15 reserved posts for S.C. only 10 posts have been filled and 5 posts are still vacant . Similarly out of 8 posts reserved for S.T. candidate only 2 posts are filled and 6 are still vacant . It is against the directives of Government of India that if the sufficient number S.C. S.T. candidates nor available on the basis of the general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them a candidate belonging to this communities should be selected to fill up the remaining vacancies reserved for them provided that they are not found unfit for the reserved post . In the above situation the vacancies cannot be filled on the basis of general standard . On the contrary a relaxed standard ought to have considered by the management . S.C. S.T. candidates who qualify on their own merits as a general candidate are also counted towards the vacancies reserved for respective category .

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between Shri A. B. Gaikwad, Daftri , Bank of Maharashtra , Banosa Branch , Tah . Daryapur , Amravati Dist . Party No. I and Bank of Maharashtra , The Chief Manager , ( Personnel Deptt . ) , Central Office , "Lokmangal " , 1501 , Shivaji Nagar , Pune -411 005 Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L - 12012/29/98/IR/ (B - II), dt . 31-12-1998 under clause ( d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether the action of the management of bank ofMaharashtra in not promoting Sh. A. B. Gaikwad w.e.f. 1993 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

3. The Petitioner workman has challenged the list of promotions and according to him he is entitled for the promotions against reserved post for S.C. His case in short is that he was appointed w.e.f. 18-06-1981 and has an excellent service record. While in service he passed S.S.C. examination . He belongs to S.C. Community and was working continuously with the respondent bank in a capacity ofDaftri .

5. According to the petitioner the respondent bank willfully ignored the guidelines of Government of India and the cordial principles issued time to time in this respect. Hesubmitted that out of 75 general vacancies 35 candidates belonging to S.C. Category has been selected on the basis oftheir merits as a general candidate . So their names should have excluded from the list of S.C. candidates . Excluding these 35 candidates 10 candidates have found their place. in merit list and thus 5 seats from S.C. Besides this 3 candidates belonging to S.C. community have been placed on waiting list instead of selecting them against the 5 vacancies reserved for S.T. Candidates . All this has caused a gross injustice to the applicant depriving him of his legitimate right of promotion to the clerical post . He is entitled to the promotion of clerical cadre with retrospective effect from August 1993 the date ofjoining of last candidate in a clerical cadre and finally he has prayed to declare the listDt. 07-01-1996 ofthe Party No. 1 is illegal and set aside it and direct the management bank to prepare a fresh merit list with the strict compliance of Government directives and promote him against 5 S.C. posts which are still vacant w.e.f. August 1993 .

6. The management by filing the Written Statement resisted the claim of petitioner / workman . It is not disputed that there were 101 posts and the number of reservations asmentioned by the petitioner . It is also admitted that the petitioner is placed in waiting list at Sr. No. 10. According to it 45 candidates belonging to S.C. and 9 candidates belonging to the S.T. category were declared successful .

4. The Respondent Bank formulated a scheme to promote the sub- staff to the clerical grade by issuing a Circular No. AXI / ST/ BPS/CIR/5 / 1996 Dt . 19-02-1996 and started the promotion process to fill 101 vacancies . Out of these 101 vacancies 15 posts were reserved for S.C. candidates , 8 for S.T. candidates and 3 for Physically Handicapped persons and remaining 75 were to be filled from the general category. It declared the result of the promotional test under its circular No. AXI /ST/RP/ CIR- 65/ 96 Dt . 07-11-1996 in which the applicant was declared as 1701 [भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजषत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

candidates . Therefore , their names should have been excludedwhile counting the promotions on reserved post.. Ifthey are excluded then only 10 persons from S.C.category are selected and 5 posts are still vacant. This act of the management according to the petitioner is against the circularDt. 07-06-1988 as well as against the principles of: natural justice . Had the policy been executed in a prospective manner he could have been included in a list ofpromoted persons while filling these 5 remaining posts . Thus he was entitled for promotion to the clerical staff w.e.f. 1993 alongwith other candidates. And accordingly he has prayed to promote him and direct the management togive all the promotional benefits w.e.f. 1993.:

Hence the merit list was declared as per directives of the Ministry of Finance from Government of India . The S.C./ S.T. candidates who qualify on their own merits as a general candidate are also counted towards the vacancies reserved for the respective communities . On the same basis ifthe number ofS.C./S.T. candidates who qualified as per general standard is more than the vacancies reserved for them the excess will be appointed against unreserved post on the basis oftheir merits with the general candidate . Therefore , abank declared a single merit list as the S.C./S.T. candidates were more than the vacancy declared under the reserved category. It has denied that the action of the bank in declaring the result Dt. 03-01-1997 is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice . 45 candidates from the S.C. category and 9 candidates from the S.T. category were filled and promoted from the list of successful candidate Dt . 07-11-1996. The circular referred in paragraph No. 7 in statement of the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs [Banking Division ] is not applicable in present context . As the same deals with the situation in which the sufficient numbers of candidates from S.C./S.T. category are not avoidable. It has followed the directive of the Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department ofEconomicAffairs [Banking Division ] vide their Letter No. FNO/ 103 /33 /3 /88/SCT [ B ] Dt . 07-06-1988 and thus according to it the action of the management is proper. It has prayed to dismiss the application ofthe petitioner.

9. As against this according to the management they have filled the vacancies as per rules and directives of the bank, it is in accordance with the policy ofthe Government . It is contended that the result of the process was declared. The Petitioner/Workman was placed on waiting list at Sr. No. 10 in the said promotion process . Amongst the successful , 45 candidates , were belonging to S.C. category and9 candidates belonging to S. T. category. Numbers of the candidates belonging to those particular categories was more than the vacancies declared and were to be filled bypromotion. As per directives ofthe circular F. No. 102/ 33/3/88 - SCI [ 8 ] Dt . 07-06-1988 successful S.C./S.T . candidates who on their own merit as per general candidates are to be counted towards the vacancies reserved for the respective categories . Similarly on the same basis if the number of S.C./S.T . candidates who qualify as per general standard is more than the vacancies reserved for them the excess will be appointed against the unreserved post on the basis of their merits . According to it , the contentions ofthe workman are incorrect . It has supported the action ofmanagement .

7. Heard the counsel for the parties perused the record and the documents. It seems that the disputes are regarding the filling and calculating the reserved post . Undisputedly the management has formulated a scheme to promote sub - staff to the clerical grade under its circular Dt. 19-02-1996. Total 101 posts were to be filled by promotion . Out of which 15 posts were reserved for S.C. candidates , & for S.T. candidates and 75 from the general category. There were other reservations also, but the since the disputes are regardng the filling of reserved posts of S.C. candidates . It is not necessary to refer the number of reservations in other categories.

10.The management has filed the circular dt. 7-11-1996 under which the scheme was framed and also a circular of 1988. It appears that the submission of the management has a considerable force . It has declared the result by a single list of successful candidates and according to that list they have issued the promotions by giving 15 posts to: S.C. candidates , 9 posts to the S.T. candidates and 25 posts to the general candidates . According to the petitioner the managerment should not have counted the persons who. are declared successful from the S.C. category at par with the general candidates. They should have been treated on: a general vacancy and besides these persons it ought to have filled 15 posts from the S.C. category. Here we are concern only with the S.C. category. The main question is whether the act of management in calculating the candidates selected alongwith general categories on reserved: vacancies for S.C. category is legal and proper ? The circular cited by the petitioner of the year 1988 does not impose. any bar în treating the successful candidates; alongwith the general candidates on the reserved post . It can be seen that35 candidates from S.C. are promoted. Similarly itwas 8. The bank declared the list of successful candidates according to the petitioner /workman out of 15 posts reserved for S.C. category only 10 posts are filled and 5 posts are still vacant . By way of example he has stated that out of 8 reserved posts from S.T. category only 2 posts are filled and 6 are still vacant. Since he is a successful candidate from S.C. category, it was necessary to promote hins on any of the remaining 5 vacant reserved post. However, without promoting him he is kept on the waiting list at Serial No. 10. It is also contended that besides him there are some other persons also of the same category onwaiting list . The S.C./S.T. candidates who qualified on their own merit with the general candidates are also counted towards the reserved vacancies . Out of general 75 vacancies , 35 candidates belonging to S.C. category have been selected on the basis of their merits with general

816 G1/07-15 1702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

not against the directives of circular Dt . 07-06-1988 because it isapplicable only when there are insufficient candidates , from the reserved category . Here the position is that the more candidates were available than the reserved posts . On the contrary there is nothing to indicate as to how it is against the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner . In the result in my view the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in counting successful S.C. Candidates alongwith the general candidates on reserved posts is correct and legal . It is neither against the principles of natural justice nor the directives of the circular . Similarly as the number of the successful candidates was more than the reserved posts and the petitioner as per his merit list since he has got a particular number of marks was kept at Serial No. 10 on the waiting list is also in accordance with both the circulars . Consequently his prayer that he should be promoted w.e.f. 1993 cannot be granted . And finally he is not at all entitled for the relief as claimed by him . Hence I am answering the reference in negative . It stands as dismissed .

Hence this award . Dated: 22-02-2007 A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

also obligatory on the management to promote the specified numbers of persons from the respective categories . It is not the case that more than 75 general candidates are selected . It reveals from the list 45 successful candidates belonging to S.C. Cadre were promoted. This act of the petitioner is in accordance with the rule of which the copy has been submitted by it on record . It is a chapter No. 3 new added para No. 13.2 . It is clear enough indicating that in promotion by a selection in S.C. S.T. candidates selected on their own merits as per general standard will also be counted against their reserved quota . Further it shows that if the S.C. S.T. Candidate who qualifies as per general standard are more than the vacancies reserved for them the excess will be appointed against the unreserved post on the basis of their own merits vis- a- vis the general candidates . Similarly the act of calculating the candidates on a reserved post though they are selected alongwith the general candidates is in accordance with the circular Dt. 07-11-1996. Moreover , the circular of 07-06-1988 is applicable when number of successful candidates is less than the reserved post . Here undisputedly the number of successful candidates is more than the reserved post. It was a process ofpromotions and it is clear that more candidates than the reserved post for S.C. Category are filled . Naturally the quota of general candidates was also to be completed and it was obligatory to the bank to fill 75 posts from the general candidates . Therefore ,the policy , which has been declared under Circular Dt. 07-1-1996 appears to be in accordance to the principles of nawal justice . It consequently follows that the management as committed no wrong in calculating the successful SC Candidates alongwith a general candidates on the resed post for S.C. categories . Thus the act of the management appears to be a legal and it cannot be treated as against the principles of naturaljutice .

का.आ. 857. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 671/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/343/91 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th February, 2007

S.O. 857. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 671/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the inanagement of Canara Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-02-2007 .

[No. L - 12012/343/91 - IR(B - II) ] 11. The petitioner has cited one case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 [2 ] Supreme Court Cases 745. But the facts of these cases are totally different . In a cited case the directions regarding the appointment/ promotions on the reserved posts are given . In the above case a particular percentage of post was kept reserved for the particular category and on the basis of it some posts as per roster were identified as the post reserved for particular category. Such as post numbers 7, 14 , 21 and so on were reserved for the particular caste. In such circumstances the successful candidate alongwith the general candidates were not counted on the reserved posts . Similarly in the above case the disputes were regarding the instructions issued by the Punjab Government and they were in respect ofPublic Service Engineer, Class 1 , PWD I.B. Rules .Here the circulars and policies are fixed by the Management itself in accordance with the policies of the Central Government . As per the circulars the management has acted and followed the directive of it . The circular Dt . 07-11-1996 issupportingto it . Moreover the act of the management is

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer [भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

ANNEMURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer Case No. I.D. No. 671/2005

Registered on 25-08-2005

Date of Decision 10-01-2007 .

Mukesh Pathak

S/o . Shri Guru Dutt,

Clo . Canara Bank,

-Petitioner Court Road, Ludhiana

Versus

The Management of Canara Bank,

CircleOffice, Sector-34-A,

Respondent Through its DGM

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Shri ArunGhai

For the Management : Shri Ashok Jagga

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . Finding that the workman is not appearing since long it was directed that'a notice be sent to him urider Registered Cover. The same was sent under Postal Receipt No. 001 dated 27th Jan., 2006. It is recorded in the ordder ofthis Court dated 24th March , 2006 that the workman has not appeared despite the expiry of statutory period of30 days nor the Registered Cover carrying the notice has been received back unserved during this period. It was in these circumstances that the case was reserved for orders on merits. The Management has submitted arguments in writing.

TheGovt. of India vide their Order No. L- 12012/343/ 91-IR(B- II) dated 13th March, 1992, referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Management of Canara Bank in not giving promotion to Shri Mukesh Pathak, Sub-Staff is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?" The workman appeared through representatives and the Management through their counsel . The Tribunal overruledthe objection of the Management that Arun Ghai , the representative of the workman , cannot appear in this case.

The workman filed his statement of claim and the rejoinder . The management filed the Written Statement. The workman also filed the affidavit whereas,the management filed the affidavit ofShri K.N. Sudhindra, They also placed on record the photocopies of the documents including the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

1703

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र. 3, 1929

and that of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. A photo copy of civil writ Petition No. 12395 of 2001 was also filed.

The claim of the workman is that he was appointed on a regular post by the Lakshmi Commercial Bank Ltd. On20th Feb. , 1982, which Bank was mergedwith the Canara Bank under the Govt. of India notifcation dated 23rd August, 1989 and both the Banks were A class scheduled commercial banks ; that as per Clause 12 of amalgamation scheme an eniployees of erswhile amalgamated Bankwas to work under the terms and conditions which governed the service conditions of employee of the Management Bank but they never followed the terms and conditions of the amalgamation . They did not follow the provisions of Section 25-FF and 25 - FFF of the Industrial Disputés Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred to as Act. They did not give any notice of retrenchment to the employees ofthe amalgamative Bank nor they served notice ofthe fresh service conditions on the employees of the said Bank. The management in no case could put him in less favourable service conditions than what he was working at the time of amalgamation. The Management however, inviolation ofmandate ofthe law entered into an agreement with a puppet Union on 3rd Jan. , 1985 and made the agreement effective retrospectively. As a result handsome service conditions goveming the workman were withdrawn and the juniors to him got promotion. The agreement having been sighed without any conciliation could not bind the workman . The further case of the workman is that he was matriculate at the time of his recratament. He was entitled forpromotion to the clerical staff from the date of his regular service. Moreover he being an experienced person knowing clerical work, besides being competent in handling the same was entitled to the clerical job , but the management did not give him the same . The workman is, therefore, entitled to the promotion to the clerical cadre retrospectively besides to the seniority from the date of his-recruitment.

The management has opposed the claim of the workman stating that the claim of the workman is not maintainable . Giving the circumstances in which the erstwhile Lakshmi Commercial Bank was amalgamated with the Respondent Bank vide Central Government approval dated 24th August, 1985, it is stated by them that as a consequence ofthe said amalgamation the service of the employees of Lakshmi Commercial Bank were continued with the respondent Bank and they were deemed to have been appointed by the Respondent Bank on the same remuneration, terms and conditions in which they were working on 27th April , 1985. In terms ofClause 12 ofthe scheme ofamalgamation the respondent Bank was to pay/ grant, upto three years from the date of enforcement of the scheme, the rank and status of the respondent Bank subject to the qualification and the experience of the employee . Any dispute about the status and the 1704

qualification or remuneration of any employee so taken on role by the respondent Bank was to be referred to the Reserve Bank of India whose decision was treated to be a final . Thus the employees of Lakshmi Commercial Bank could not claim the rank and status of the employees of Canara Bank only on the basis of rank of service in the said Bank . The Management Bank extended the benefit of service condition of their employees to the employees of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank w.e.f. Ist October, 1985 with due consultations with the Majority Union of the said Bank and the employees of the respondent Bank which resulted into a settlement . According to that agreement, one and a half years of service in the Laksmi Commercial Bank was to be taken as one year of service in the management Bank . The scheme was got approval from the Reserve Bank of India . The respondent Bank took into consideration , the status of the two banks , the areas of their activities and other aspects in determining the status of employees of Lakshmi Commercial Bank . Thus the service weightage of employees of the two Banks could not be equated That approach was approved by the Reserve Bank of India saying that the experience gained by the employees of Lakshmi Commercial Bank could not be equated with that of the employees of the Canara Bank . The opinion ofthe Reserve bank of India , in terms ofClause 12 of the scheme of amalgamation was to be accepted as final . Even otherwise , in terms of Section 45 Sub Clause 5 (i , ii ) of the Banking Regulation the services of the employees of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank were to be continued on the terms and conditions they were working till the service conditions of the Canara Bank were to be extended to them . In view of that the workman was bound by the terms and conditions of service of the Canara Bank .

The further claim of the Management is that there is no merit in the claim of the workman that the management Bank has not followed the provisions of Section 25 ( FF) of the scheme adopted was in accordance with the provisions ofBanking Reguiation Act and in view of the scheme of amalgamation any grievance , the workman having could be referred only to the Reserve Bank of India and could not be agitated as an Industrial Dispute . The reference is , therefore , barred and cannot be considered . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in writ Petition No. 685 of 1985 and 1475 of 1984 held that the dispute if any arises out of the scheme of amalgamation was liable to be referred to Reserve Bank of India and the writ Court has jurisdiction . The Reserve Bank of India on a reference made by General Secretary Canara Bank Employees Congress also approved the scheme of amalgamation by which the ratio of 1.5 × 1 was approved by the management Bank . The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief. The reference is also bad for mis -joinder and non -joinder necessary parties .

On merit it is the claim of the Management that the contents of para 5. 7 are incorrect . Admitting the contents of para 1,2,3 and partially of para 4 they have submitted

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] that the management Bank has not violated the provisions of the Act, the amalgamation scheme , or Bi - partite Settlement approved by Central Govt . or provisions of the Banking Regulation Act . Moreover , if the workman has any grievance with the Bank he should approach Reserve Bank of India as per the scheme as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further denying that the management had entered into an agreement with puppet unions it is stated by them that if it was so there should have been the voice raised against such a settlement . The settlement having been arrived at has become binding upon all the workman, especially as the said scheme has been approved by the Supreme Court and the Reserve Bank of India. Moreover, Section 25 - FF of the Act could be applicable only where the transferor undertaking retrenched the services of the transferred employees . In the present case there was amalgamation ofthe Lakshmi Commercial Bank in terms of the Banking Regulation Act . Moreover , there never came any interruption in the services of the Bank, therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation . The provisions of Section 25 - FFF could also be not applicable since the undertaking in which the workman was working was not closed rather amalgamated. Asserting that the settlement wasarrived at by the management with the majority Union , therefore, the same became binding on all the employees . Moreover , the service conditions made applicable to the workman are not less favourable to him , therefore , the claim of the workman is not justified. His claim is also not worth consideration that he had handled superior work and so he was entitled to the same service conditions as were available to the eniployees of the Respondent Bank before amalgamation nor his claim falls within the provisions of Section 25 - FF . The claim of the workman is not maintainable against those employees of the Management Bank who are not party in this reference and who will get effected in case of the workman is allowed . For this reason also the reference cannot be accepted.

The workman filed the rejoinder and rebutted the claim made by the Management in the Written Statement. According to him , the workman is challenging the agreement by which the Management had entered into with a puppet Union and to which agreement he was not a party . Moreover , after the amalgamation scheme was enforced the Reserve Bank of India lost the jurisdiction to examine any dispute so arisen thereafter . The jurisdiction got vested into the conciliation officer. Therefore , the points raised by the Management have no weight and the same be rejected .

The workman appeared as a witness and proved his affidavitExt . W- 1 . In the cross - examination he admitted that he had continued working as Sub Staff till the amalgamation of his Bank to the Respondent Bank . He further admitted that there was no regulation in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank by which a matriculate directly could get promoted as Clerk though it was the policy of that [भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

Bank.He further stated that there was no written order by which he was made to work as a Clerk . He further stated that his pay was protected by the Respondent; and that neither he nor his Union had referred the scheme of amalgamation to the Reserve Bank of India for interpretation.

The witness for the Management A.N. Sudhindre, byhis statement, proved his affidavit M- 1 , memorandum of Settlernent M- 2 and notificaiton M-3 and M -4 . In cross- examination he stated that an agreement had been arrived at between the management and the majority union of Canara Bank on 3rd October , 1995. He denied the knowledge that an employee in Lakshmi Commercial Bank could get recommended for promotion on his passing the matriculation examination nor he has the knowledge that the workman is a matriculate . He further denied the knowledge that the workman was a member of the Union which had signed the agreement . He denied other suggestions made by the workman that the workman was entitled for promotion as per the rules of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank; and that the promotion has wrongly been denied by the workman .

The question which this Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon is whether the Management Bank was justified is not giving promotion to the workman . If the reply is in the negative to what reliefthe workman is entitled to . The admitted case of the parties is that the workman was the employee of Lakshmi Commercial Bankwhich was amalgamated with the Canara Bank as per the Notification ofGovernment of India No. 17 /12 /85.B.0.111 (II ) dated 23rd August, 1994 and as per the amalgamation scheme the Management of the Respondent Bank was to extend the same terms and conditions of service to the employees of Lakshmi Commercial Bank as extended to its own employees upto three years . It is also admitted that as per the amalgamation scheme any dispute between the employees ofthe amalgamated Bank and the Respondent Bank was to be referred to the Reserve Bank of India decision was to be taken as final . There is also no dispute that the Respondent Management had entered into an agreement with the employees Union of their Bank on 3rd October , 1985. According to that the weightage to the service rendered by the Employees of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank vis - a- vis the employees of the Canara Bank was to be given in the ratio of one and half years service equivalent to one year service in the Canara Bank and the seniority of the employees of the amalgamated Bank and amalgamating Bank was to be framed accordingly . The grievance of the workman is that he was not a member of the Union which had entered into an agreement with the management, therefore , he was not bound by such an agreement. However, he has failedto produce any evidence to show that the Union with which the management had entered into an agreement, was not a majority union representing majority ofthe employees of

1705

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

the amalgamated Bank. In the absence of any evidence against it, the agreement entered into between the workmen and their employer, became binding on all the employees and the employer. The workman has also failed to show, rather, in his statement before this Court he admitted that the dispute which he has raised now, was not referredto the Reserve Bank of India by his Union as per the amalgamation scheme nor by him . Now he cannot raise that dispute before this Tribunal since the statue vested that power in the Reserve Bank ofIndia and this Tribunal cannot substitute its opinion about the dispute so long it wasnot considered by the Reserve Bank of India . There is also no weight in the submission of the workman that after the scheme was enforced qua the disputes arisen out ofthe amalgamation scheme, the Reserve Bank of India wasdivertedwith that jurisdiction. The workman has also admitted that there was no regulation in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank by which he could be promoted as a Clerk directly as he was a matriculate . He claimedthat it was the policy ofthe Bank to promote the matriculates as Clerks, but he has failed, to refer to any example or prove that this policy was followed by the Lakshmi Commercial Bank.

After going through all the evidences available on record I have come to the conclusions that the workman has failed to show that the action of the management was . wrong and illegal in not promoting him as a Clerk. Therefore , he is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Leta copy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.. i

::

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 858. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंबाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 867/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जी कैन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-02-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/453/91 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th February, 2007

S.O. 858. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 867/2005) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the 1706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

affidavit of their another witness , S.L. Doda , but he was not examined as a witness in the case .

employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-02-2007.

[No. L - 12012/453/91 - IR(B- II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

Case No. 1.D. No. 867/2005

Registered on 20-04-1992

Date of Decision 13-02-2007

V.K. Vaish ,

Through the Workman Represented By Central Bank of India Employees Union , Haryana Regd. 129 , Laikurti ,

Ambala Cantt .

-Petitioner

Versus

Regional Manager ,

Central Bank of India , Regional Office, 106, Metro Motors Bldg .

Ambala Cantt . - 133001

-Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

: Mr. R. P. Rana

For the Management : Mr. N.K. Zakhmi ,

Advocate

AWARD

The claim of the workman , as made out in the claim statement , is that he was appointed as Peon in the Management Bank on I'lth Aug. , 1970 ; that he appeared in a written test for promotion in the clerical cadre held on 20th Dec. , 1980 and cleared the same but the management did not call him for an interview held on 31st May, 1983 . Despite his representation he was not given the chance to appear in the interview. As a result he raised the Industrial Dispute and during the conciliation proceedings the Management claimed that the interview letter to the workman was not issued since he was away to Bombay and the Management did not have his address on which the communication would be sent . The fact was that the workman had left his address on form B , upon which the Management had sent him the Bank Draft; that the management asked him to give an undertaking and also issued reminder , but he did not sign the undertaking . The management raised the plea that the Departmental Inquiry was pending against the workman for his having done copying , during the Departmental Examination . Although the action of the Management was belated even then the workman gave his explanation and the Departmental Inquiry was held in which he was awarded the punishment of "Censure" . According to him since the Management failed to prove the allegation of use of unfair means against the workman , therefore , he was only given minor punishment of" Censure" . The workman was not awarded punishment of misconduct, therefore , he could not be denied the promotion in the clerical cadre as was given to Shri Radhey Shyam Sethia, who was also held guilty of the same misconduct . In the end the workman has prayed for declaring the denial of promotion to the workman as unfair, unjust and illegal and prayed for treating him to have been promoted w.e.f. Sept. , 1983 , with all monetary benefits , seniority and back wages alongwith costs .

TheGovt . of India vide their Order No. L - 12012/ 453/ 91 - IR (B - II ) dated nil referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal and it was registered on 20thApril , 1992:

"Whether the action of the Management of CBI is not allowing of promotion to Shri V.K. Vaish, Daftari , to the post of Clerk w.e.f. Sept. , 1983 , in relation to its Branch at Shahabad Markand is fair, just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned isentitled and from what date ? "

The management has opposed the claim of the workman stating that the workman has not come with clean hands to the Court as he has concealed the material facts . Accordingto them the workman had appeared in XIth All India Promotion Test for clerical cadre in the year 1981 in which he was found successful , but before he could be promoted it was found that the workman alongwith Radhey Shyam indulged in unfair means while answering the test. Theworkman alongwith Radhey Shyam raised the dispute before the conciliatory authority , where the workman besides Radhey Shyam was asked to submit an undertaking . Shri Radhey Shyam submitted an undertaking whereas the workman did not do so . As a result he could not appear before a special interview- cum - aptitude test held at Regional Office , Bhopal . The dispute was not referred for adjudication as it was held that mere qualifying the Written Test was not sufficient for promotion . That The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives and later on through their Counsel . The workman filed his Claim Petition and supported the same with his affidavit . Management filed reply to the Claim Petition and supported the same with the affidavit of their witness Shri S. K. Madan . Both the workman and Shri S. K. Madan appeared as witness in the case . The Management also placed on record the 1707

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/ चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग 1 ]-खंड 3( ii ) ]

the management initiated a departmental inquiry against the workman for his misconduct , in which he was held guilty and was awarded the punishment of "Censure", The workman raised the dispute before the conciliatory authoritybut withdrew it. According to them the reference made is bad, suffers from Latches and also is not maintainable . Since the workman did not challenge the earlier order , therefore , that became final and now , on the same facts, it cannot challenge that . Even otherwise the workman was never interested in his promotion as he did not appear in the subsequent tests held and now he cannot take the benefits of his own lapses . The workman is otherwise not entitled to promotion for having failed to give undertaking or for having üsed unfair means in the Written Test.

interview arranged for him at Bhopal . There is no reply with the workman about this assertion . He admitted that he was asked to tender a written undertaking which he had not submitted. In that situation then How could he claim the right to appear in the interview whereas his co- worker Radhey Shyam tendered the undertaking and was interviewed and promoted. The imposing ofthis condition of undertaking is not shown to be unreasonable to the claim ofthe workman for promotion especially when it is admitted case ofthe parties that the workman hind indulged in unfair means in passing the written examination , for which he was punished. Then how could the Management allow him the promotion when the punishment was standing in his way and he was not prepared to give even undertaking . The workman has placed on record the draft of the undertaking Annexure - B so as to show that the samewas illegal and unlawful .According to this letter the undertaking was to the fact that the workhitin accepts the decision of the committee as final and in that case he is found suitable for promotion he will not claim effect of that from back date mor shall raise fresh disputes regarding the promotion . In a situation where the workman was given concession dispute having been punished for unfair means , there was nothing bad for the Management to ask for such an undertaking as a commercial institution always would try to have peace in the establishment and including with their own staff. Moreover there could not be stoppel against the law and that undertaking could not be said to be void ab initio .

The further claim of the Management is that the workman is not entitled to any relief since the Management had allowed the workman to take part in the special interview. The workman however did not comply with those directions , whereas Radhey Shyam did it. Thus there was no discrimination perpetuated on the workman, rather the workman deprived himself of the chance , by his own conduct . He also failed to prove his innocence in the inquiry. Describing the averments made in the Claim Petition as wrong it is stated by the Management that the basis of his promotion was not only written test and that Shri Radhey Shyam had appeared for an interview so he was promoted. The workman has , therefore, no right to claim and he is not entitled to no relief.

From the pleading of the parties it is clear that the promotion to the workman was not denied by the management, but it was not given to frim because the workman did not comply with the directions of the competent authority. Therefore , he could not be considered for promotion . The action of the Management was , therefore, fair, just and legat. The workman is, therefore , not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

...नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2007

The dispute between the parties is withina narrow compass . Both the parties admit that the workman had appeared in a Written Test for promotion to the clerical cadre held in the year 1981 in which he was declared pass however he was found to have used unfair means in the Written Test for which an inquiry was held by the Management and he was held guilty for having used unfair means . He was given the punishment of " Censure " . It is also admitted by both the parties that the workman had raised the dispute ofdirected both the workman and Shri Radhey Shyam , to submit undertaking so that the special interview could be held to assess their merit for promotion. The workman did not file the undertaking whereas Shri Radhey Shyam filed the same and he was promoted. It is also a proved fact that after the punishment of " Censure " was awarded to the workman, he raised the dispute before the conciliatory authority but later on withdrew the same. The workman later on complained that his plea was not allowed. The fact, however, remains that the punishment awarded to the workman became final .

का.आ. 859.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार औरिएण्टल इंश्यूरेन्सकं. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं. -2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 607/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्रापफ हुआ था।..

[ सं. एल -17012/ 41 /95 - आई.आर . ( जी-11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी Now the question arises whether the Management was justified in not allowing the promotion to the workman to the post of Clerk. The plea of the management is that since the workman did not tonder the undertaking demanded, therefore , he was not allowed to appear in the 1708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 27th February, 2007

through their Counsel . The workman filed his Claim Petition to which the Management filed the Written Statement. The management also filed the aflidavit of Shri D.R. Salaria insupport of their Written Statement besides that of H.M.S. Bedi , the Administrative Officer Raj Kumar , A.K. Dass and Mrs. Savita Khanna , Deputy Manager . The workman filed hisown affidavit.

S.O. 859. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 607/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Insurance Company Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-02-2007 .

[No. L - 17012/41 /95 - IR(B - II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II, CHANDIGARH

The case was being listed for further proceedings when the management made an application for amending their Written Statement duly supported by the affidavit of their Regional Manager . After taking objections from the workman, the matter was considered and the management was allowed to file amended written petition . They also placed on record photo copy of administrative instructions and other documents including the vouchers marked as Ex-M3 to 11. It is on record that the workman did not file the rejoinder nor produced any documents after the filing ofamended Written Statement by the Management .

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 607/2005

Registered on 24-08-1998

Date of Decision 20-02-2007

Rajesh Kumar .

S/o Shri Pritam Chand ,

R/ o House No. 476 : 1 , Sector 40 -A ,

.... Petitioner

Chandigarh .

Versus

The Assistant General Manager ,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. SCO No. 109-10-11 , Sector- 17 -D, Chandigarh .

......Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Mr. Raman Sharma

Advocate

For the Management : Mr. Ramesh Chopra Advocate

AWARD

The claim of the workman is that he had joined the service with the Management as Class -IVfrom 1st Oct. , 1990 and served them till 30th Sep .. 1991 when his services were terminated by the Management illegally and without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter to be referred as Act . The workman was called as a Water Carrier , however . he used to attend to other works desired by the Management ; that no notice was issued to the workman before the termination of his services nor he was paid wages in lieu of the notice period. TheManagement retained the juniors of the workman in service whereas they terminated his services in violation ofSection 25 -G of the Act . They appointed fresh hands as Class- IV employees on the post the workman was working without offering the workman the appointment and so they also violated the provisions of Section 25 - H of the Act . It is further claimed that the workman raised the demand notice , but there was no conciliation . As a result of that , a failure of conciliation report was submitted to the Government which has resulted into the present reference . The workman in the end has prayed for an award in his favour directing the Management to reinstate him in service and also give him the benefit of continuity of service and backwages.

The Govt. of India vide their order No. L - 17012/41/ 95- IR (B - II ) dated 4th March , 1997 , referred the following dispute for the adjudication of this Tribunal :

" Whether the action of the Management of OICL , Sector - 17, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Pritam Chand , a part time ( Water Carrier ) w.e.f. 30th Sep. , 1991 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

The reference was received and registered on 17th March, 1997 and after the bifurcation of court work , the reference was received in this Tribunal on 24th August , 2005. In reply to the notice issued the parties appeared

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman by their averments . As per their Written Statement amended upto date , the workman is not entitled to any relief since he had served the Management only for 169 days from Nov. , 1990 to Sept. , 1991. Moreover he was working for the management for two hours a day on contract. He was only a water carrier and the job was for a limited period . He was also not engaged by following the rulestherefore , the question of regularizing him in service did not arise . Taking the plea of latches it is stated by the management that the workman has raised the dispute after a long delay , therefore , he is not entitled to any relief.

1709 भातका पत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/3/1929

[ भाग 1] खंड 3(ii) ]

Moreover, the workman did not serve the Management for240days preceding the date ofhis working, therefore, no- relief can be given to him. He is also hotontitled to any roliefsince he did not fulfil the criteria required for the: appointment of Sulk Staff. The workman was.ongaged for carrying tworthree buckets of water for which he was engaged on contract at the rate ofRs. 350 per month and he has to tho that jobs before the working hours .

back in service, later on. Hedeniedthat he lind notreported for duty on 1stOctober, 1991. Ho dening theknowledge an to who was ongngol after his termination. Admining bie signatures on vouchers M- 1 and Marked as A ho denied that hewas working on contract basis. He admitted that no deduction, towards PF was made from his wages nor he was issued any salary shoct. The claimed that initially he was being paid wageswares atat the rate ofofRa.Ra. 250 bat là the endhewas gettingRs .300 per month as wages. He further admitted that he has no proof to show that hewas also delivering the letters of the Management

of TheManagement examined Shri, Raj Kumar and Mrs. Savita Khanna as their witnesses. Shri Raji Kar admitted the contents of his affidavit M-15 and stated that he had nevernever seen the workman doingkman doing duty for the Mimagement. He fürther stated thatthat therethere usedused to be nine persons working in the Branch during his posting. Mrs. Savita Khanna, by ber statiment proved hol affidavit M-1 anddocuments M- 2 to M- 14. She further stated that during the year 1990 to Sep. , 1991 she was posted in the Divisional Office if Chandigarh whereas the Warmer wis posted in the Branch 2 in the same premises. thẻ khowledge thật để Workninh vàs required to work dily for two hoàn & day but hand the war onder appointment was given to the wall on the Tutto stated that the job of the wellman 'wilf to carry two Buchints of water, before the office hours , and the saw boting paid on daity wages excluding Sundayu and Sheintays. She admitted that Mr. HMS B wasa Brand Manager. She further stated that for converisoncó sike the workran was paid it the end ofthe month, that there is no record to show that the workman was paid Rs: 250 vide veuscher No. 00369 dated list Nov. , 1900, wages, for October , 1990; that she lus also no record to aberythat the workmen was engaged holding for carrying two buckets ofwater. She also calatot say without record whether any netice was given to the workman, after he stopped coming for thework. Admitting that by M- 11 the wallaman was paid Rs.250 permonth and for ton days he was paid Rs . 83; and that she cannot say whether the workman was paid on dailyormonthly basis......

Onmerit it is claimed by the Management that the workman hadworked for the Management intermittently and hewas a dailywager .He did not work on Saturdays and Sundays and was paid for the days be served. There was no perkatent post ofthe swater cavier, therefore, he is.. not entitled to reinstatement . Denying that the Managerment had terminated the services ofthe workman on30th Sep. , 1991 it isstated by them that the workman himself had not turned op after that date, at his own and during his engagement he had performed the duties from 1st October, 1990to Nov., 1990, with a long break of 60days, from 10th May, 1991 to 9th July, 1991: He worked for 21 days in the month ofSep. , 1991 and in total he served for 169days with interrupted gape and sohe did not perform the duties for240 days in any calendar your. According to them the claim ofthe violation of the provisions of Section 2A, 25F, G and Hof the Act is baseless. It is stated by them that the workman neither performed duties for the required of period of 240 days in the calendar year nor fulfilled the educational qualifications for the post. Therefore, his claim for reinstatement is not maintainable. TheManagement had not terminated the services ofthe workman , therefore, there was no question ofgiving him the notice nor the Management had terminated his services. They have also denied that any junior of the workman was retained in service or anyany fresh hands were recruited as is claimed. The Management did not violate the provisions ofSection 25-F, G and H. Admitting that the conciliation proceedings were held by the ALC, Chandigarh and the Management had taken the sameplea before him .According to them the workman has remained employed somewhere else, therefore, he is not entitled to anyrelief.

Theclaim of the workman is that he fad joined the service with the Management on Class-IV post'on ist October, 1990 and served then upto 30th Sop:, 1991. His claim is that the Management had terthinated his services thereafter in violation of provisions oftheAct . th support of his claim he has tendered his affidavit of hes also appeared as awitness . He has however, failed to produce any other evidence to support is claim. Od the other hand, the chim ofthe Managsinent is that theWortanan hadworked for the Management froinNov., 1990 toSep., 1991 and in all for 469 days. It' in further their claimthatdie workman was so save the Mamagerment for wohours dayand thereafter he was not supposed to romalien the office.According to tham the woường mis engaged on contractualbasis so as to carry water for the Management Theworkman by his statement before this Tribunal provedhis affidavit W+ and admitted that his name was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor he was issued any appointment fetter. He further somitted that he was ongaged as a Water Carrier but clained that he was alsomade to do otherjobs . He denied that his engagement was only for two hours a day rather he used to serve the Management from 9 am to 6 pm daily, but his attendance was not recorded; that his working was supervised by the BankManager Mr. Bedi . Admitting that he was paid by vouchers on menthly basis he stated that he was also enjoying the holidays; that he had served the Management. continuously; that on 30th Sep. , 1991 , he was not admitted for duty and was given the assurance that he will be taken

816G407-16 1710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] He was not engaged against a permanent post nor the nature of his engagement was regular . According to them the workman was paid Rs . 250 per month so as to carry 2-3 buckets ofwater from ground floor to the second floor.

Management in para 3 of the Written Statement has claimed that theManagement had not terminated his services rather hehad not reported for work after 30th Sep. , 1991. Against this neither the workman filed any rejoinder nor produced any evidence . The workman has further failed to prove that the Management had retained his juniors while terminated his services. In his statement, before this Tribunal, the workman admitted that he cannot give the name of the persons who were employed after the termination of his services .

The workman in his statement admitted that he was not sponsored for engagement by the Employment Exchange nor he was given any appointment letter. He further admitted that he was engaged to carrying the water. However , he further claimed that he used to be asked to do other works and , therefore , he worked for the Management from 9 a.m. to 6.p.m. He claimed that Mr. Bedi was the Manager who used to supervise his work . He further admitted that he was paid through vouchers on monthly basis .

The workman has claimed that if the Sunday and paid holidays are included , he is shown to have served the management for 240 days . He has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 300 (NL ) of 1982 decided on 28th August, 1985 and reported as AIR 1986 SC 458. In my opinion since the basic question of engagement of the workman is shown to have been contractual , this authority cannot help the workman as his engagement was not regular against the sanctioned post . The other authority reported asAIR 2005 Supreme Court 3966 is also not helpful to him for the reason that the workman has failed to prove that the Management had retrenched him from services . As against to , it has been proved that the workman was engaged on contract for a specific period and for specific work of carrying water from ground floor to second floor. There is no evidence to show that the workman had worked for the whole day.

In view of the discussion made above I am of the opinion that the workman has failed to show that the Management had terminated his services w.e.f. 30th Sep. , 1991. There is no evidence to show that the relationship of the parties was that of an employer and the employee . Rather it shows that the relationship of parties was contractual which ended when the workman is shown to have stopped working for the Management. The workman is, therefore , not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 860.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब व सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 670/2005) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Asstated earlier the workman has not produced any evidence to show he was made to do other work than the carrying of the water of that his working was supervised by Shri Bedi who was the Manager of the Bank . Shri Bedi has not been examined by the workman . On the other hand the Management has placed on record the affidavit of Mr. H.M.S. Bedi , the Administrative Officer , who claimed that he had served as Branch Manager , Branch Office- Ilnd, Chandigarh from 28th March, 1988 to 18th Dec. , 1994 and during his period Rajesh Kumar S /o Pritam Chand admitted by the workman was engaged for less than 2 hours for carrying water from ground floor to second floor and he used to be engaged only for five days a week; and that he was never engaged for the whole day. On record 1 find documents M - 1 , M-4 to M- 14 which are disbursement vouchers from Nov. , 1990 to Sep. , 1991 with breaks . According to these vouchers the workman was paid charges for carrying water from ground floor to the second floor . He was paid 250 during the months of Nov. , and Dec. , 1990 , Jan. to April 1991. He was paid Rs . 220 in July , Rs. 83 for the period from 1st May to 10th May , Rs 40 as balance, Rs . 260 for August , 1991 and Rs . 300 for Sep. , 1991. The workman has not produced any evidence to rebut this claim . From these documents it is clear that the workman was engaged for carrying water for the Managementfrom ground floor to second floor and that he was not performing his duties regularly ; and that he was paid different amounts of wages and apparently for the job he performed during the period . The workman , therefore, has utterly failed to show that he was engaged against the post of Class - IV and that too on 1st October, 1990. From the wording of the vouchers produced, it further becomes clear that the engagement of the workman was contractual and for a specified work. If the workman had worked for whole of the day , what was the difficulty for him to have examined any of the official of the Management, who were -posted in that Branch , during that period or any other person he dealt during his so called engagement .

Itis also disputed by the Management the workman had been disengaged by the Management . The

[सं. एल-12012/ 150/97-आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 1711 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/ चैत्र 3 , 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2007

alsoplaced on record the photocopies of some deconten On theirrequest they were allowed to file an affidavit of their another witness bharcharan Singh : Thai workspan appeared as awitness whereas the manigaischt pooduced Shri Harcharan: Single as their witaces whose statiterit was recorded en twe aceasions.

S.O. 860. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 670/ 2005) ofthe Central Government, IndustrialIndustrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen, which was received by the CentralGovernment on27-02-2007,

(No. L- 12012/ 150/ 1997 - IR(B- 11)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip singh , Presiding Officer

Case LD, No. 670/2005

Registered on 25-08-2005 Date ofDecision 18-12-2006

Balbir Chand

5/6 Shri Mangat Ram , VPOGarcha Tehsil andDistrict

Petitioner

Nawanshahar

1 Versus

Punjab and SitidBank HeadOffice,

21 , Rajindra Place, New Delhi, Through its Chairman/

Respondent

Principal Attorney.

APPEARANCE

Forthe Workman

ShitV.K. ChopraAR

The claim ofthe workman isis that he was employed by the management on 4th October, 1998 as a Security Guard andhe worked for them upto 7th July, 1994 , in their Branches at Village Kaman Garcha and Banga Tehsil Nawanshahar . He was provided with a gun by the Management bearing No. 3036671/49; that his serviceswere terminated by the management without any notice or termination order, that at the time ofhis termination he was drawingRs . 1280 per months salary. That since the workman had served the Management for more than 240 days, 12 months preceding the date of tormination ofhis services, therefore, his retrenchment was bad in lawas the management had neither issued him the notice nor paid him the retrenchment compensation . At the time ofhis disengagement, he was informed that his case is being considered and he will be informed about the result. That sincehis father was unwell , therefore, be could ootamise the demand in time, that he is unemployed since the day of termination of his services, that the Management ins made fresh appointsments at his place. They haνο μίσο retained his juniors in service. That the work is available with the Management; that the workman wes never engaged through Police ; that even the record prepared by the management under Punjab Shops and Carunorcjal Establishment Rulos, 1958, contains his name, Besides the payment was made to him by choques in his salary account No. 2000/79, maintained at the Management Breach , The workman in the end has prayed for quashing his retrenchment from in service with full back wags , continuity from service and for all consequential benefits.

Mr. J.S. Sathi Advocate

ازاد For the Managemant

150

AWARD

The following reference was received from theGovt. of India vide their order No. L- 12012/150/97- IR(B-II) dated 13th Jan. , 1998 :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Balbir Chand w.e.f.8-7-1994 is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the concemed workman is entitled and from what date ? "

The Management has opposed the chim of the workman stating that the claim of the workman is wrong and incorrect. The workman was nevet engaged by the Bank. The true facts according to them are that due to disturb law and order conditions in the State of Punjab Special Police Officers were deployed in the Banks , as per the guidelines ofthe District Authorities. Shit Balbir Chand was deputed through the Police Department arid he served as SPO in the Gacha Branch from 7th Sep. , 1992 to 5th July, 1994. As per the guidelmes , an honorarium of Rs .43 perdaywas paid to the SHỐ Rahan which was disbursed toShri Balbir Chand, by the concented PoliceAuthority. His claim that he was paid Rs. 1290 as salary por month is wrong. Hewas not appointed by the Banknor he held any post in the Bank, therefore , he did not acquire the status of employee of the bank so as to be entitled to the protectión unider ID Act, 1947, hereinafer to be referred as Act; that there is delay in making the claim by the workman and for that also the claim should be rejected.

The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their Counsel . The workman filed hisClaim Petition , the management their reply. The workman filed his affidavit and also placed on record photo- copies of a number of documents including his identity card and the copy of Bank Pass Book: The Management filedthe affidavit ofShri Balkar Singh, their witness . They 1712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] Contesting the claim of the workman that he is unemployed it is stated by the management that the workman got employed in a spinning mill at Mattewal, District Ludhiana in August , 1994. Moreover nobody can survive without livelihood in these hard days . Thus the claim of the workman is incorrect . Taking the support ofjudgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana passed in LPA No. 2092 of 1992 it is stated by them that the SPOS were not the employees of the Bank nor they were entitled to other concessions available to the Bank emplyees. The workthan having been engaged through the Police , in a difficult law and order situation , is not entitled to any claim against the Bank nor he has any legal right to enforce the same , therefore , his claim may be rejected.

1992 to June , 1992 in the Banda Branch and from 15th Feb. , 1993 to 7th July, 1994 in the Gacha Branch of the Bank as SPO . It is claimed by them that in view of the difficult law and order situation in the State of Punjab the district authorities had provided additional security to the Banks and in furtherance of that direction , the workman was posted at SPO in the Management Bank , to work as a Guard . According to them the workman was neither appointed by them nor they ever paid him the wages directly. However, as per the directions , an honorarium was paid to the SPO , posted but through SHO Rayon . In support of their calim they have placed on record a number of documents such as photocopies of the vouchers pertaining to the period Feb. , March , April , June , July , October 1992. The workman has also placed on record similar vouchers which have been exhibited as W- 13 and W- 14. There is also on record certificates , W-3 , W-4, W-5 relied upon by the workman. He has also produced W- 12 which is a certificate claimed to be issued by the Manager, Banga Branch , of the Management which reads that the workman Balbir Chand had worked in the Banga Branch as a Security Guard from 1st Feb. , 1992 to 2nd Jan. , 1993 ; and that he had performed his services very honestly and diligently. These documents support the claim of the Management that Shri Balbir Chand , the workman , had served them in the capacity of SPO , so as to provide additional security to the Bank . The vouchers produced clearly show that the management had been making the payment , in different amounts , to SHO Rahon as honorarium to SPO Balbir Chand . There is nothing on record to show except the statement of the workman that the workman was appointed by the management and it is the management which had terminated his services . The management was fair enough to admit that the workman had served them for the period as stated by their witness Harcharan Singh , Manager but they claimed that the workman had served, them as SPO having been posted with the management through the District Authorities and he received the payment of wages through the concerned SHO.

The workman appeared as a witness in the case and byhis statement he proved his affidavit and the documents , Exhibited as W-2 to W- 14, when cross -examined he admitted that he was not given any appointment or termination letter by the Bank. However, he claimed that he was appointed by the Bank . He further denied that the terms and conditions or engagement were told to him by the Police . He admitted that he had worked in spinning mill at Ludhiana and that he is drawing Rs . 1700 per month as pension . The management examined Shri Harcharan Singh Manager as thier witness who proved his affidavit M- 1 and documents M/ A to M/F . In cross - examination he stated that since the workman was not their employee , therefore , the Bank does not possess the service record of the workman . He admitted that the workman had attended the work from Feb. , 1992 to June, 1992 in Banda Branch of the management and from 15th Feb. , 1993 to 7th July, 1994 in Gacha Branch as SPO . He denied that the Management has with them the attendance register of Gacha Branch . He showed his inability to verify that Gun No. 3775 /A/9 was issued by the management Bank. He further stated that in the attendance register, brought by him, the attendance of SPOs , temporary and Casual employees used to be recorded . He admitted that no compensation was paid to the workman nor he was issued any notice since the workman had come to the Bank through the Police , therefore , there was no question of paying him the compensation . The Bank used to pay honorarium to the SHO concerned and not to the SPOs direct. He admitted that the Bank used to monitor the duty hours of the workman and he worked under the control of the management , but denied that the services of the workman were terminated by the management , since he was not the employee of the Bank .

I have considered the pleadings of the parties and have also gone through the record.

The present case is a case where the management has totally denied the relationship of employee and employer between the parties . They admitted that the workman had served them , as per their witness from Feb. ,

The workman has much relied upon the I-card issued in his favour and his pass book . He has also relied upon mark M / O and M /D and stated that the Management had made him the payment directly , but he has failed to say anything against Mark M / A which was the letter written by DSP Sub Division Nawanhsahar dated 16th Sep. , 1988 by which the concerned Branch Manager was told that Balbir Chand, an Ex - Serviceman , has been appointed as SPO in the Punjab and Sind Bank . According to that the salary of the SPO shall be paid by the Bank whereas the Arms and Authorities shall be supplied by the Police Banga. From the evidence available on record it is proved that the workman had served the management, but he was not directly appointed by the management rather he had performed his duty as SPO , provided to the Bank by the [ भाग II-खंद 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

1713

the managementwhatto talk ofby following due procedure andby a proper competition . Same can be said about the other judgements referred to by him as the same do not support the case of workman, which has different facts.

Police although the management had paid his salary through the concerned SHO . Thus the claim of the workman that he was engaged by the management and it is they who had terminated his services is not proved.

In view of the discussion made above I am of the opinion that there is nothing on record to show that the management had terminated the services of the workman and that their action if at all was legal and justified. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against hito holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate Govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

Theworkman has relied upon as many as 25 reported judgements which include that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and different High Courts of the country . He has also provided me the photostat copies of thejudgement. I have gone through these judgements and find that the authorities relied upon by the workman are not helpful to him as the facts in the cases' referred were distinct and different. Nobody can have disagreement with the law laid down especially by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the law so laiddown is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 861.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 9/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/141/2001 - आईआर (सी- म ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ देना अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th February, 2007

S.O. 861. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Contral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No: 9/2003) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the campleyers in relation to the management of ECI and their workman , which was received by the Central Governamentow 27-2-2007

[No. L-42012/141 /2001 - IR( C- II )]

AJAYKUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer.

L.D. No.9/2063

PRESENT :

Shri S. P. Sharma

1st Party

Shri Deepak Diwan

In the case of Bank ofBaroda V/ s Ghemerbhai and Harbai, reported as 2005 Labour and Industrial Cases 2279 theworkman had worked for the management though he was claimed to be engaged in a Project under some scheme . The management claimed that since the workman was engaged by the Executive of that scheme and not by the Bank, therefore, the workman was not the employee ofthe management. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not agree with the submission in facts of the case and held that singe the management has failed to produce the evidence to rebut the claim of the workman , therefore, their Lordship it presumed that the workman was an employee of the Bank. In the present case the werkanan is shown to have been engaged by the District Authorities through the police and provided as additional security to the management Bank . He was also paid wages through the cornicerned SHO and not by the management directly . The workman, therefore , could not be treated as an employee ofthe management .He was provided as additional security to theBank which the management could withdraw at any time. There has come nothing on record to show that the management could dismiss or suspend the workman or give him any punishment for his misconduct from no angle he could be treated to the employee of the management Bank. Thus the law referred to by him is not helpful to him. In the case of Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board V/s Suresh and others the documents produced in the case showed overall the working of the contract Labour including administrative contról being with the Board and it was upon that basis the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the control of contract system was mere a camouflage, smoke and a screen . In the present case there has come nóthing on record to show that the control of the workman was with the management and not with the Police, which haddeputedhim as additional security for the management Bank. Moreover in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court ofSecretary, State of Karnataka and others V/sUma Devi and others bearing civil appeal Nos . 3595- 3612/1999 and decided on 10th April , 2006 , the workman is not entitled to any relief since he was not appointed by

.....2ndParty THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

1714

IN THE MATTER OF :----

Shri Neeraj Kumar ,

S/ o Shri Mahendra Kumar , RB- II , 240 -Double Storey Building, Railway Colony. Agra, Uttar Pradesh

Versus

TheDistrict Manager, Food Corporation of India, 60/4 , Sanjay Palace , Agra(U.P.)

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 22012/ 141/2001 - IR (C- II) Central Government dated 07-01-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India , Agra in terminating the services of Shri Neeraj Kumar w.e.f. January, 1988 is legal andjustified ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? "

The workman applicant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim it is stated that he was employed bythe respondent as Class - IVemployee w.e.f. 01-03-1983 and worked regularly upto 31-12-1987 .

That the workman was not given minimum wages by FCI , Agra . He raised demands orally for payment of atleast minimum wages . The employers were annoyed and he was asked not to come from 01-01-1988 .

That on 01-01-1988 when the workman approached the employer they refused to give him any work .

The respondents refused to give him anything in writing . He remained at the gate for sometime but his request went on unheeded, so he filed a Writ Petition No.4506/96 in the I lon'ble High Court of Judicature at Delhi and he was directed to approach the appropriate forum.

That the workman is still urtemployed and he is in financial doldrums .

That the workman was not given any appointment letter at the time of engagement but he has signed the attendance register .

That the workman is unskilled workman . He can only perform duties of Class - IV employees . That his removal is illegal and against the provisions of law and he has not been paid any retrenchment compensation at the time of removal from service .

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the present petition deserves to be dismissed at the outset itself since

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] the present dispute is not an industrial dispute and does not fall within the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the following amongst other reasons :

A. Because there was no relationship of master and servant between Shri Neeraj Kumar Misra and the management . Shri Neeraj Kumar Misra was never employed with FCI . Shri Neeraj Kumar was engagedby Labour Contractor and was employee of the labour contractor in all respects . Further , the allegations of Shri Neeraj Kumar Misra are self contradictory. The alleged workman himself in para 1 of his Writ Petition No. 4506 of 1996 before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi , alleged himself as labour on contract basis. Similar allegations were made in para i of the application u/ s 12 before the RLC( C ) , Kanpur . As per alleged workman's own averments before ALC( C) , Lucknow , RLC, Kanpur and High Court ofNew Delhi he was a contract labour . No claim can be made by Shri Neeraj Kumar against FCI . Shri Neeraj Kumar was never appointed by FCI.

B. Because abolition of contract labour could not be subject matter of adjudication . It could only be abolished by the appropriate government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.

C. That no discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or otherwise termination was ever made by the management as per alleged workman's own averment .

II . That the order of reference is bad in law.

A. Because , the appropriate government did not apply its mind of the facts of the case . The date oftermination in the order of reference has been givenas January, 1988 while as already submitted earlier, the alleged workman had averred his employment till 1988 .

B. Because the appropriate government has failed to consider that Shri Neeraj Kumar Misra was never employed with FCI . The order of reference has been couched in an illegal manner in such a way as to force the management to prove only the legality and/ or justifiably of the alleged termination . The management at no point oftime, alleged, averred or admitted either the employment or termination of the alleged workman .

That the reference has been made within inordinate delay and no cogent , satisfatory or sufficient reasons have been explainedby the alleged workman . The alleged termination was of January , 1988 while the reference has been made after lapse of 15 years. The Writ Petition was filed after 9 years which was disposed of on 15-04-1988 , 1715

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929.

[भाग II- खंड 3(ii ) ]

thereafter the alleged workman did not take any step, an application was filed on 25-09-2000 before ALC( C) , Lucknow as per his letter No. LKO- 14(i ) 198 dated 17-08-1998, and again on 25-09-2000 an application under Section 12 ofthe ID Act, 1947 was moved before RLC(C), Kanpur. The alleged workman did not mention as towhy he did remain silent from 1988 till 07-11-1996. Therefore, the present reference deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delays .

That it is , settled that labour laws are not meant to harass the employees . This machinery cannot be exploited to extract money from the employers.

That under the aforesaid, circumstances , the award deserves to be made in favour of she management with costs and against the alleged workman .. The alleged workman is not entitled to my relief as claimed in his statement of claims.

toplace. The alleged workman also did not explain as from whose custody and how the alleged attendance sheets were obtained, Without prejudice to the above , submitted that a fow casual labourers might have been working on contract basis during March/April, 1983 being provided by the contractor to handle Casual work of the godown as per the provision of the Model tender from the HTC and in accordance with the scheduled rate of the model tender form for providing casual labour by the contractors the payment ' stands reimbursed, to the contractor as per tander forms. Therefore, attendance register alleged to show the employment are merely documents which show that number of labourers provided by the contractor on a specific date to get work done certificate to claim payment from FCI on the terms ofrates oftheir tender . The same is not'a record of FCI nor is it the attendance register as claimed. Therefore, the contention that Shri Noeruj Kumar workedwith FOI since Mitch April, 1983 and continued serving in the deparament olll 1988's totallyfalse and baseless . Even otherwise the same relate to a few months in 1983 and not for the period 1983 to 1988. It is again reiterated that the allegedattendance register is not of the FCI and the same appears to be a fabricated document Shri Neeraj Kumar Misen is only attempting to mislead this Hon'ble Court and the whole basis of the present potition is totally false on the face of the record.

It is reiterated that Shri Neeraj Kumar Misha was It is totally denied as false and baseless that Shri Neeraj Kumar was employed by FCI. Further the alleged workman in para 1 of his writ petition No. 4506 of 1996 before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi , alleged himself as labour on contract basis. Similar allegations were made in para 1 ofthe application u/s 12 before the RLC (C), Kanpur and alleged worked for five years andtill 1998 respectively in two earlier litigation and now he is alleging direct employment from 01-03-1983 to 31-12-1987 . The stand of Shri Neeraj Kumar Misra is totally contradictory and with a view to mislead this Hon'ble Court.

never employed by FCL hence the alleged termination by FCI does not arise. There are thousand jobs ofunskilled workman as Palledar, Rickshaw Puller but everybody wants job in Government establishment where money can be earned without least responsibility and care.As per the averments of the alleged workman , he was a contract labour for which compliance.of Section 25F of the ID Act, 1947 is not mandatory.

That prior to earlier litigation, the allegedworkman averred abrupt termination without any specified date . The alleged workman has not still specified the exact date , the name of alleged manager with whom alleged demand for paymert of minimum wages was made . The DM, FCI had no direct links with any alleged contract labour. Therefore, the contention about alleged workman's alleged grievance istotally false and concocted story.

The alleged workman may be put to strict proofof it. He is not entitled to any relief as prayed. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Fion' ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs .

It is however, submitted that the Hon'ble High Court recorded in the order that Shri Neeraj Kumar was at liberty to file a case for conciliation u/s 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 for redressal of his grievances , being the proper forum .

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

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.......

Heard arguments frofit both the sides and perused the papers on the record

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe workman that heworked regularly for 4 years with the respondents used his services have been abruptly tertuinated He has filed photocopies ofhis attendance from 02-03-1963:0634-07-1983 The alleged workman is out and out to harass the management. He filed two conciliation cases before ALC(C), Lucknow and RLC (C) , Kanpur and a writ petition in Delhi High Court, so by any stretch of imagination, it could be alleged that the alleged workman was financially in doldrums. The alleged workman as per his own averments, was a contract labour , hence the question of giving appointment did never arise . The alleged workman's attendance register does not bear any name of the management. It appears to be clear fabricated document. The signature of alleged workman also differing from place 1716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

to establish the fact that he was in regular employment of the respondents . These photocopies of attendance sheet do not bear any evidence of the same being of FCI , Agra . These are photocopies marked on blank papers .

It was submitted from the side of the management thatthe workman might have obtained the same from the contractor . He has not filed any documentary proof regarding his service with the respondents .

The list of workers working in the year 1994 is annexed with the letter of General Secretary , Shri H. P. Singh. The name of the workman does not appear anywhere inthe list filed by the General Secretary for issuing Identity Cards to the casual workers .

Itwas submitted that the workman was not even a casual worker in the year 1984. He has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he worked in the year 1984 not to speak of working upto December , 1987 .

The workman has not filed any document to show thathe has worked from 1983 to 1987.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that the workman as per his own allegation worked from 1983 to 1987 whereas he has raised this dispute after delay of 15 years . Delay deprives a man of remedies and reliefs . He is not entitled to get any relief on account ofdelay alone.

The reference has been made with inordinate delay and no cogent satisfactory or sufficient reasons have been explained by the alleged workman . The alleged termination was of January, 1988 while the reference has been made after lapse of 15 years . The Writ Petition was filed after 9 years which was disposed of on 15-04-1998 , thereafter the alleged workman did not take any step , an application was filed on 25-09-2000 before ALC( C) , Lucknow as per his letter No. LKO- 14 ( i ) 198 dated 17-08-1998 , and again on 25-09-2000 an application under Section 12 of the IDAct, 1947 was moved before RLC( C) , Kanpur. The alleged workman did not mention as to why he did remain silent from 1988 till 07-11-1996. Therefore , the present reference deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches and delays.

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no explanation of delay. Not to speak of plausible or satisfactory explanation . There is no explanation at all what prevented the workman to approach this forum after a long period of 15 years . It is settled law that stale claim made after an inordinate and unexplained perjod could not be entertained.

My attention was drawn to 2005 (5) SCC page 91 paras 12 and 13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that long delay impedes the maintenance ofthe records . Belated claim should not be considered .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (il) ] It has been held in (2001 ) 6 SCC 222 as under :-

"Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act . It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled . Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of the order dismissing the respondent from service . " In the instant case reference has been made after a delay of long 15 years. Limitation Act is not applicable in ID cases but stale cases should not be considered. Delay in the instant case is inordinate and relief can be rejected on the ground of delay alone .

The workman has failed to prove that he has worked withthe respondents from 1983 to 1987 as contract worker or as direct employee . There is nothing on record to substantiate his claim statement .

In writ filed before the Hon'ble High Court he has not specifically mentioned the dates of his engagement and disengagement . The averments of the claim are not proved . The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Agra in terminating the services of Shri Neeraj Kumar w.e.f. January, 1988 is legal and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award isgiven accordingly .

Dated: 20-02-2007 .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 862.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/253/2005- आई.आर. (सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th February, 2007

S.O. 862. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 76/2006) 1717 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2007

.

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. II, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-2-2007.

[No. L-42012/253/2005 - IR(C- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 863. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947) का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/48/2001-आई. मार.( सी-11 ) ] BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI ;

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer .

New Delhi, the 27th February , 2007 I.D. No. 76/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Radhey Shyam,

C/o . The General Secretary,

Workers ' Union (Regd.) , A-28-T, Delhi Police Apartment, Mayur Vihar , Phase- I, Delhi-110091

S.O. 863. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/2001 ) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Triburial- cum- Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department , and their workmen, whichwas. received by the Central Government on 27-2-2007.

[No, L-42012/48/2001 - IR(C- II) ] Versus

TheDirector General (Works) ,

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer CPWD,

ANNEXURE

Nirman Bhavan, NewDelhi - 110001

AWARD

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

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/ 253/2005 -IR ( C- II ) Central Government dated 14-09-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication .

1.D. No. 65/2001

The point runs as hereunder-

PRESENT :

Shri B. K. Prasad

1st Party

2nd Party

Shri B. Mund

IN THE MATTER OF :-

"Whether the demand ofthe CPWD Workers ' Union regarding reinstatement of Shri Radhey Shyam Mandal wie.f. 22-07-2005 and regularization of services with retrospective effect is fegal and justified ? If yes , to what relief the workman is. entitled ?"

Shri Suresh Kumar Singh & 3 others ,

C/o The General Secretary,

CPWD Mazdoor Union ,

E-26 (Old Qtr. ) , Raja Bazar, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi- 110001

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference was received on 22-09-2006 . Registered notice tothe claimant was sent by the Desk Officer on 14-09-2006. Registered notice was sent to the workman which has been received unserved. The notice, has been sent on the address provided in reference . The reference is to be decided within 3 months .

Versus

TheExecutive Engineer,

CPWD, Parliament Works Division No. 1 , Theworkmar has not filed claim on 07-12-2006 and 01-02-2007 . The workman was not present . The workman does not wantto contest the case .

I.P. Bhawan , I.P. Estate ,

No dispute award is given..

New Delhi - 110002

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer

Dated: 19-02-2007:

816 G1 /07-17 1718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] AWARD

(iv) Regarding payment of Naresh Kumarby the management for the period given as under:

(a) 1-11-1997 to 9-10-1999 1500/- per month The Ministry of Labour by its letter Nos . L -42012/ 48/2001 - IR (C - II ) Central Government dated 03-09-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication :--

(b) 10-10-1999 to till date 1600/- per month The point runs as hereunder :

Thatall the workman have been performing their duties as Sewermen classified as skilled workmen in the CPWD but they have been getting even the less payment fixed for the unskilled workmen under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the appropriate Government from time to time. This action of the management is not only unfair labour practice but the force labour as the management exploiting the workmen due to unemployment in the country.

"Whether the action of the Executive Engineer, CPWD, Parliament Works Div . I , I.P. Bhawan , I.P. Estate , New Delhi in stopping from services verbally w.e.f. 6-4-2000 in respect of S/ Shri Suresh Kumar , Rajbir, Satish Chandra and Naresh , Sewerman, who wereworking since 1-11-1993, 10-5-1997, 7-7-1998 and 1-11-1997 respectively instead of regularizing them in service and paying them equal pay for equal work like regular workers w.e.f. their respective date is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief they are entitled to ? י

That the above management has been taking the maintenance work by employing regular and permanent workmen in the category of Sewermen under the division and more than 500 workers have been performing the work ofSewermen in the regular capacity in the different division ofCPWD under the Director General ( Works) in Delhi .

The workmen applicants has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the above workmen have been engaged for the work of Sewerman camouflagedly through some unauthorized contractor the particulars of workmen are given as under :

Name of workman

Date of Employment

1. Shri Suresh Kumar

01-11-1993

Thatwith a view to expoilt the workmen connected with the dispute the management only treated the workmen employed through some fake contractor but the duty of the workmen were only extracted from the regular enquiry Clerk, Junior Engineer etc. ofthe management .

2. Shri Rajbir

10-05-1997

3. Shri Satish Chander 07-07-1998

4. Shri Naresh

01-11-1997

That neither the Executive Engineer connected with the dispute got the registration nor the so - called contractor have taken licence from the appropriate Govt . to employ the contract labour on the permanent nature ofjob in the category of Sewermar .

That the payments have been made by the management through one contractor at the following rates:

(i) Payment of Suresh Kumar

Thatneither the so- called contractor nor the above management has been paying their wages at the work spot asprovided under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 .

Period

Payment (Rs .)

(a) 1-11-1993 to31-12-1995 1000/- per month

(b) 1-1-1996 to 31-12-1997 1700/- permonth

That the management has not been performing their duties as envisaged under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 and the Minimum WagesAct, 1948 .

(c) 1-1-1998 to 31-12-1999 1700/- per month

(d) 1-1-2000 to till date 1600/- per month

That the above management has not prepared the register of wages , register of overtime, wages slip etc. as providedunder Rule 78 of the Contract Labour (Abolition &Regulation) Act, 1970 .

( ii) Regarding payment of Rajbir Workman by the management:

(a) 10-5-1997 to 31-12-1997 1500/- per month

That the management has also violated the provision of Payment of Wages Act , 1936. Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and rules made thereunder.

(b) 1-1-1998 to 31-12-1998 1600/- per month

(c) 1-1-2000 to till date 1800/- per month

( iii) Regarding payment of Satish Chander by the management for the following period: .

(a) 7-7-1998 to 9-10-1999

1500/- per month

(b) 10-10-1999 to till date 1600/- per month

Thatthe above workmen connected with the dispute are performing their duties regularly and directly under the control of Junior Engineer , Asstt . Engineer and the Executive Engineer concerned and being a perennial nature ofwork and performing more duties as compared to their counterparts in the regular establishment or daily rated workers directly employed by the management in the 1719 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workmen . " xxx

category of Sewermen so they are also entitled for equal pay for equal work from the date oftheir initial employment.

That the management has indulged in unfair labour practicewhile employing the workmen as badlis or casual with the object ofdepriving them of the status and privilege ofpermanent workmen so the workmen are entitled tobe regularized in the time scale by the management.

That the management of CPWD have also signed a settlement before the ChiefLabour Commissioner (Central) under Section 12 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that before awardingthe maintenance work to the contractor, Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineer will hold discussions with the representatives of CPWD Mazdoor Union in pursuance of the Memorandum of settlement dated5-9-1986 and 15-11-1989 and the said Settlements are atso enclosed as Annexure - I, II with the statement of claim.

That the management were not performing their duties being the principal employer and the so called contractor was camouflagedly and sham so the workmen connected with the dispute to be treated as direct employees ofthe management .

That during the pendency of the dispute for regularization before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum -Conciliation Officer , the management terminated the services ofS/Shri Suresh Kumar, Rajbir and Satish Chander w.e.f. 6-4-2000 without following the provisions ofSection 25F and the management have also not taken permission for retrenchment from the said ConciliationOfficer which also violated the provision of Section 33 of the Industrial DisputeAct.

That after signing of the said settlement , the management i.e. Director General ofWorks , CPWD vide its Circular No. 22/ 16/98 - EC.X dated 28-12-1989 also circulated the said settlement and authorized the Chief Engineer/Superintending Engineers to hold discussions in future with the representatives ofCPWD Mazdoor Union before awarding the maintenance works to the contractors so as to explore the possibility ofgetting the maintenance works done through departmental labour . Copy of the said circular is enclosed and marked as Annexure- III .

That the termination of the services of the above workmen without holding inquiry and paying compensation alongwith one month's pay or notice pay is utter violation of provision of natural justice so the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity of service alongwith regularization and grant of equal pay for equal work.

That the management is not performing its duties as provided in theContract Labour (Regulation & Abolition)' Act, 1970 and violating the settlement which is signed under Section 12 of I.D. Act which binds the management and violation is the same as an offence so the employment ofcontract labour for maintenance work is also violative ofthe above settlement between the management and the representatives of their trade union i.e. CPWD Mazdoor Union so the workmen have to be treated as departimental labour and the management circular in pursuance of the settlement dated 5-9-1986 and 15-11-1989.

That the above management is duty bound to perform its duty and abide by the agreement with the CPWD Mazdoor Union under Section 12 of the I.D. Act .

Thatthedaily rated workers under Director General (Works) , CPWD under which this management are functioning have been paying the wages in the time scale alongwith all the allowances except increment to their daily rated workers so these workman are also entitled to receive their wages as per the said order for equal pay for equal work because the duty hours of these workamen are same tothedaily rated workmen and regular work-charged staff ofthe management . Copy of the equal pay for equal work is also annexed as Annexure - IV with this statement of claim.

That in CPWD, as per the judgement of Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the matter of Surinder Singh & Ors, Vs. Engineer- in-Chief, CPWD & Ors . dated 17-1-1986 all the daily rated workers in the CPWD have been getting their wages in the time scale from their respective employment butthese workmen connected with the dispute have been exploited by the management being a Government Deptt.

That the work of Sewerman is classified as skilled workman and the wages paid by the management to this category as skilled workmen and also the said salary have been paying to the daily rated workmen to Sewerman on the analogy of equal pay for equal work from the date of their initial employment except increment so these workmen connected with the dispute are also entitled to the wages as equal pay for equal work from the management w.e.f. their initial employment .

That the management with a view to deny the status and privileges of permanent workman retain them on daily rated which is unfair labour practice as envisaged in item No. 10, V Schedule under Section 2(ra) ofthe I.D. Act and violation of the said provision has a penalty for committing unfair labour practice under Section 250 and 31 of the said Act . The same is reproduced as under:

That S/Shri Suresh Kumar , Rajbir and Satish Chandra Sewermanare entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 6-4-2000 with full back wages and continuity of service because they are still unemployed.

"xxx 10. To employ workmen as ' badlis ' casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years , 1720.

That S/Shri Suresh Kumar , Rajbir , Satish Chandra and Naresh were also entitled to be regularized w.e.f. 1-11-1993, 10-5-1997 . 7-7-1998 and 1-11-1997 respectively and also entitled to equal pay for equal work from the said date as per the order of payment to the said wages to their daily rated workmen in the said category being a skilled workmen .

The Management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the claimants / workmen are not falling under the definition of " workman " as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the present claim under reply is not maintainable before this Hon'ble Tribunal . It is respectfully submitted that the answering management has never appointed the claimants/workmen herein . It is admitted by the claimants themselves in various paras of their claim under reply that they were engaged by some contractor for the work . Therefore , there exist no relationship of employer- employee between the answering management and the workmen since the claimants are not the employees/ workmen of the answering management, and hence , it is respectfully submitted that the present claim of the claimants/workmen under reply is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone .

That the claimants/ workmen have no cause of action in their favour and against the management . It is respectfully submitted that the claimants /workmen herein admitted engaged by some contractor to perform the work . They were never engaged by the answering respondent at any point of time for any work and therefore the workmen have no cause of action against the answering management and in their favour and hence , present claim under reply is liable to be turned down by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone .

That the present claim ofthe claimants / workmen is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party for just and proper adjudication of the matter . It is respectfully submitted that as per the claim of the workmen, they were engaged by some contractors and the payment were received by them from the contractor. It is submitted that the workmen herein have failed to make the said contractor a necessary party for the just and proper adjudication of the matter by this Hon'ble Tribunal . The workmen have not even disclosed the name of the said contractor. Hence , it isrespectfully submitted that the present claim of the workmen /claimants under reply is bad for non -joinder of necessary party, and therefore , the claim is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone .

That the present claim of the workmen is time barred and therefore , not maintainable . Without prejudice to its rights and contentions of the answering management , it is respectfully submitted that the claim of the workmen that they were receiving payments from the contractor which dates back to 1-11-1993.10-5-1997, 7-7-1998 and 1-11-1997

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ofShri Suresh Kumar, Shri Rajbir , Shri Satish Chandra and Shri Naresh respectively . It is pertinent to mention here that the above said workmen have never complained to the answering respondent regarding less payment by the contractor as per the wages fixed under the Minimum WagesAct or any other law in force during the period/ tenure ofthe contract or immediately after the completion of the said period/tenure of contract . Therefore , the workmen cannot claim anything at this belated stage after the passing of so many years . Hence , it is respectfully submitted that the present claim of the claimants/workmen under reply is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone .

That the contents of para No. 1 of the claim under reply are matter of record and therefore, need no reply .

That the contents of para No. 2 of the claim are false, frivolous , misconceived and denied . It is denied that the workmen have been engaged for the work of sewerman camouflagedly through some unauthorized contractor as perthe particulars given in the para under reply . In reply to para No. 2 of the claim , it is submitted that the workmen herein were employed by the registered contractor of the CPWD /management for doing the work awarded to the registered contractor against some specific agreement(s) . They are not the persons appointed by the management as per the Recruitment Rules of the Deptt./management . The workmen were engaged by the registered contractor for the specific job awarded to him by the Deptt./ management and since they were engaged by the contractor , they were paidby the contractor as per the Minimum Wages Act .

That the contents of para No. 3 are denied in its present form for want of knowledge . In reply to para No. 3 ofthe claim , it is submitted that the workmen have neither disclosed the name of the contractor nor filed any documents to support their claim . The workmen herein might have been engaged by a registered contractor for doing the work awarded by the answering management i.e. , for specific job only . The workmen have been paid by the registered contractor as per the Minimum Wages Act and no complaint for payment of wages less than the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act was ever receivedby the answering management from the workman during the currency of the agreement or after the closure of the agreement or till date .

That the contents of para No. 4 of the claim are denied. In reply to para No. 4 of the claim , it is submitted that the contents of para No. 3 as well as the contents of preliminary objections of this written statement may be read as part and parcel of the reply to this pare which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. It is , however , categorically denied that the management has done any unfair labour practice or has exploited the workmen .

[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

1721

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

That the contents of paras No. 10to 12 ofthe claim under reply are wrong, misconceived, frivolous , bogas and denied. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the work was awarded to the registered contracter(s) and executed through him only and as such, every activity relating to labour was as per the relevant clauses of the agreement. It is submitted that there is no violation ofany law since the work was got executed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement

That the contents of para No. 5. of the claim are misconceived and therefore denied. In reply to para No. 5 of the claim, it is submitted that the regular workmen employedby the management as per the recruitment rules ofthe Department are paid as per the service rules whereas the workers employed by Registered contractors are governed by the Minimum Wages Act and the service condition of the regular workmen of the management cannotbe compared with the workmen herein since they are engaged by the registered contractor . It is categorically denied that the management or is officers has exploited theworkmen.

In reply to para No. 6 of the claim, it is submitted that maintenance are awarded to registered contractors at such places where no regular worker for doing such work are available.

That the contents of para No. 7 of the claim under reply are false , frivolous, misconceived and denied . The answering management categorically denies all the allegations levelled against it in the corresponding para of the claim . In reply to para No, 7 of the claim, it is submitted that the works are awarded to registered contractor ofthe management , who in turn for doing the work so awarded to him on contract might have employed the workmen herein. All necessary instructions for doing the work are given to workmen by the respective contractor only and not by the management.

That the contents of para No, 13 of the claim under reply are wrong, misconceived, frivolous, bogus, baseless anddenied. It is categorically denied that the workmen lherein are performing their duties regularly and directly under the control of Junior Engineer, Asstt . Engineerand the Executive Engineer concerned as has been alleged. It is also denied that the workmen herein are performing more düties as compared to their counterparts in the regular establishment or daily rated workers directly employed by the management in the category of sowermth so they are also entitled for equal for equal pay for equal work from thedate of their initial employment. In reply to this para, it is respectfully submitted that the workmen are never employed by the answering respondent nor any letter of appointment was ever issued by the management in their favour. Therefore , the workmen herein can never be compared with the regular workmen employed by the answering respondent as per the recruitment rules and other relevant rules framed thereunder , it already submitted in the foregoing paras of the present written statement that there is no control and supervision of the answering respondent over the workmen berein like any other workmen working under a registered contractor to execute a particular work as per the terms and conditions of the contract. Every direction/instruction for doing the work was given to the registered contracter by the concerned departmental officer of the answering resporident. And the said contractor further used to issue instruction to workers employed by him . The submissions made in the preliminary objectionsas well as in the foregoing paras of thepresent reply on merits may be read as part and parcel ofreply to the corresponding para of the clain which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

That the contents of para No. 8 of the claim under reply are wrong, misconceived, frivolous and denied. It is categorically denied that neither the executive engineer got the registration nor the so -called contractor has taken licence from the appropriate govt . to employ the contract labour on the permanent nature of job in the category of sewerman. It is respectfully submitted that as per the rules, the registered contractor is to take licence from the concerned labour authority if more than 20 workmen are employed by the contractor . The submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply tothe corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake ofbrevity.

That the contents of paras. No. 14 and 15 so far related to the Settlement dated 5-9-1986 and 15-11-1989 and Circular dated 28-12-1989 of the Director General of Works, CPWD are concerned, are matter of record and therefore need no reply. In reply to these paras , it is submitted that such type of works are awarded to registered contractors only when there is no specific labour available with the answering managerment for doing such work and as such there is no necessity of holding discussion with therepresentative of the CPWD Mazdoor Union .

That the contents of paza No. 16 of the claim under reply are wrong, misconceived , frivolous and denied: It That the contents of para No. 9 of the claim under reply are wrong, misconceived, frivolous and denied. It is categorically denied that neither the contractor nor the answering management has been paying their wages at the work spot as provided under the Minimum Wages Act , 1948. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the workmen have been paid by the registered contractor as per theMinimum Wages Act and no complaint for payment of wages less than the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act was ever received by the answering management from athe workman during the currency of the agreement or after the closure of the agreement or till date, 1722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii ) ]

to this para, it is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity .

is categorically denied that the management is not performing its duties as provided in the Contract Labour . (Regulation & Abolition) Act and violating the said settlement as has been alleged in this para under reply . It is further denied that the employment of contract labour for maintenance work is also violative of the above settlement between the management and the representative of the trade union . It is vehemently denied that workmen have to be treated as departmental labour of the answering management in persuance of the settlements dated 5-9-1986 and 15-11-1989 . It is respectfully submitted that all the allegations in the para under reply are fanciful , baseless , misconceived , wrong and therefore, denied. The submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake ofbrevity.

That the contents of para No. 17 of the claim under reply are misconceived and denied . The submissión made in the foregoing para of the present reply on merits maybe read as part and parcel to the corresponding para ofthe claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

That the contents of para No. 21 of the claim under reply are false , wrong , frivolous , misconceived and denied . It is categorically denied that the answering management wasnot performing its duty being the principal employer . It is also denied that the contractor was camouflagedly and sham so the workmen connected with the dispute to betreated as direct employees of the management. In reply to this para, it is repectfully submitted that there is and there was no employer - employee relationship between the answering management and the workmen herein. It is pertinent to mention here that the workmen were never employed by the answering management and further that the workmen were admittedly employed by some contractor whose name was not disclosed by the claimant. It is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing para of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity .

That the contents of para No. 18 of the claim under reply are misconceived and denied . In reply to this para , it isrespectfully submitted that the judgment cited by the workman in the corresponding para of the claim under reply is not applicable in the present case . The answering management crave leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to place on record the relevant judgements in its favour at appropriate stage of the proceedings .

Thatthe contents of para No. 22 of the claim under reply are misconceived , false , wrong , frivolous and denied. In reply to this para , it is submitted that the claimants were never employed by the answering respondent at any point oftime and therefore , there is no question of terminating the services of the workmen . So far as the question of following the provisions of Sections 25F and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are concerned , it is submitted thatas mentioned in the various paras of the preliminary objections as well as in the reply on merits that the workmen, herein were never employed by the management . They were engaged by some registered contractor for doing the work awarded to him under specific agreement . It is submitted that the submission made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to thecorresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity .

That the contents of para No. 19 of the claim under reply are false , wrong , frivolous , misconceived and denied. It iscategorically denied that the answering management with a view to deny the status and privilege of permanent workman retain them on daily rated which is unfair labour practice as envisaged in item 10 of Fifth Schedule under Section 2(ra) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and rest ofthe para ofthe claim is denied as misconceived , irrelevant to this present case as there is no violation of the said provisions of the Act . In reply to this para, it is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

Thatthe contents of para No. 20 of the claim under reply are false , wrong, frivolous , misconceived and denied. It is categorically denied that the answering management has indulged in unfair labour practice while employing the workmen as badlis or casual with the object to depriving them ofthe status and privilege of permanent workman . It isvehemently denied that the workmen are entiled to be regularized in the time scale by the management . In reply

Thatthe contents of para No. 23 of the claim under reply are false , wrong , frivolous , misconceived , baseless and denied . It is wrong to allege that termination of services of the workmen without holding enquiry and paying compensation along with one month pay or notice pay is utter violation of the provisions of natural justice so the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service alongwith full back wages and continuity ofservice alongwith regularization and grant of equal pay for equal work . In reply to this para, it is respectively submitted that it is already stated in the foregoing paras of this written statement that the workmen herein were never engaged by the answering management [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का सजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

1723 at any point oftime, therefore, the question of termination of their services does not arise, least to say about holding of inquiry of payment of compensation . Therefore , it is submitted that the workmen are not at all entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of services . Theworkmen herein are also not entitled to regularization andgrant of equal pay for equal work. It is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel ofreply to the corresponding para ofthe claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

contraryto records and denied. It is strongly denied that Sh. Suresh Kumar , Rajbir, Satish Chander and Narcals wore: also entitled tobe regularized w.e.f. 1-11-1993, 10-5/ 1997, 7-7-1998 and 1-12-1997 respectively and also entitled to equal pay for equal work from the said date as per the wages paid to their daily ratedwerkmenin the said category being skilled workmen . In reply to this para, it is submitted that the workmen herein were never appointed by the answering management at any point oftime therefore, the question ofregularization, equal pay for equal workdoes not arise. Since the workmen were engaged by the registored contractors,they received their payment/wages as per the Minimum Wages Act .As no complaint from the workmen herein with regard to less payment of wages by the registered contractor as per the Minimam 'wige Acthas been received the payment as per the Minimum Wigés Act. Further, in reply to this para, if is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para ofthe claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

The workmen applicants have filedsajainder. In their rejoinder theyhave reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most ofthe paras ofthe written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

1 That the contents of para No. 24 of the claim under reply are faise , wrong, frivolous , misconceived, and baseless , contrary to records , and denied. It is wrong to allege that the workmen herein are also entitled to receive their wages as per the said order ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court for equal pay for equal work because the duty hour ofthe workmen are sanie to the daily rated workmen and regular work charaged staff ofthe answering management. In reply' to this para, is submitted that the workmen herein were never engaged by the management and as admitted bythem, these workers were engeged by some contractor for doing some specific work awarded to a registered contractor by the management . The claimants/workmen were paid as per the Minimura Wages Act applicable.Hence, the question of payment to them as per the daily rated worker and regular work charged staff employed by the answering management is not proper, justified and legal.

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

It was submitted from the side of the worlumen that Shri Suresh Kumar was engaged on 01-11-1993, Rajbir on 10-05-1997, Shri Satish Chand on 07-07-1998 and Shri Naresh on 01-11-1997. Their services wees, torminated on 06-04-2000 . They have been engaged through some contractor but the work is of perennial nature Contract labour is prohibited for engagement oflabour's for those works which are perennial in nature .

That the contents of para No. 25 of the claim that the workmen herein are entitled to the wages as equal pay for equal work from the management with offect from their initial employment, are wrong, false, frivolous , fanciful, baseless and therefore , denied. Rest of the para under reply arematter ofrecord and hence , need no reply. It is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the presentreply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the correspondence para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity...

That the contents of para No. 26 of the claim under reply are false, wrong, frivolous , misconceived, baseless , contrary to records and denied . It is strongly denied that Sh. Suresh Kumar, Rajbir and Satish Chander sewerman are entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. 6-4-2000 with full back wages and continuity of service because they are still unemployed. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the submission made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras ofthe present reply on merits maybe read as part and parcel ofreply to the corresponding para ofthe claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

That the contents of para No. 27 of the claim under reply are wrong, frivolous , misconceived, and baseless ,

The workmen have filed photocopies of Complaint Book No. 2. From B- 86 to B- 116, these photocopies relate to 1994 and the name of Shri Suresh Kumar is entered on the complaint book of 15-07-1994. The photocopies of complaint book no. 2 contain the names ofdifferent persorts just as Ram Prakash, Nand Kishore, Bajeshwari , Chuppu , Chunni Lal etc. This indicates that the workman whose names have been mentioned in the photocopies have worked for only those particular days . The names of the workmen other than Shri Suresh Kumar, has not been mentioned even in the photocopies of the complaint book no . 2. The workmen have filed photocopies of complaint book no. 1, from B-39 to B-85. There is no mention ofnames ofany ofthe workman in the complaint book no. 1. These complaint books only reveal that complaints have been THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3, 1929

1724

made recording blocking of different gutters and drains . It has nowhere been specifically mentioned as to which workman performed these works . The workmen have not filed any other document to prove the fact that they have worked under the same contractor in the years 93 to 06-04- 2000. The name of the contractor has not been revealed in the claim statement .

The workmen have not even asserted that they worked under the same contractor during the alleged period oftheir engagement .

The contract labours are prohibited for sweeping an cleaning work but it will not be deemed to be proved that the workmen have worked as they have alleged in their claim statement . There is no even scrap ofpaper other than the documents adverted to above to establish the fact that theworkman Shri Suresh Kumar has worked regularly from 01-11-1993 to06-04-2000 and the workman Shri Rajbir has worked from 10-05-1997 till 06-04-2000 . No workman has filed any document to establish the factum of their performance of their duties for the tenure alleged by them .

It cannot be deemed proved on the basis of mere affidavit that the workmen have worked for 240 days.

It was submitted from the side of the management that on some occasions when there is heavy load, work is given to the contractors . The workmen have admitted that they have not made any complaint in writing regarding the minimum wages being not paid to them . They have raised thisdispute for the first time. Some to the workmen have stated in their cross examination that they were engaged through contractors and some have stated that they worked directly under the JE and they were engaged by the JE whereas the claim case is that these workmen were engaged through contractors .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the workmen have deliberately concealed the name of the contractor as they have not worked under any of the contractors . They were not even casual labours .

In case even it is presumed that the workmen worked under the contractor they have to establish that payment was made to them by the department . They worked under the control and supervision of the department then only it can be said that there is master and servant relationship between the respondents ' and workmen . The workmen have not even proved that they have worked regularly under any contractor for the period alleged. They have . filed photocopies of complaint book nos . 1 and 2 for the year 1994 and their names are not appearing therein . There is absolutely no evidence to establish that the workmen have worked regularly even under the contractor as alleged. They have not filed any document to show that they were engaged by the management and worked under the control and

[PART II SEC. 3( ii ) ] .

supervision of the management and their services were integrated to the premises of the management . There is no cogent evidence of the working of the workmen for the alleged tenure either under the contractor or under the department.

It was submitted that the workmen have not been paid even minimum wages . They should have disclosed the name of the contractor and then only it can be ascertained whether payment of minimum wages have been made to them or not . Their inere statement in the claim statement is not sufficient to hold that they have not been paid minimum wages . They have admitted that they did not make any complaint in writing regarding non payment ofminimum wages . The management cannot be asked to make payment of minimum wages as contractors may have made them full payment .

It is not necessary to deal with the case law as provided from the side of the workmen . They have not proved that they have worked continuously for the periods alleged, so there is no question of their regularization or reinstatement or order for payment ofminimum wages .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the Executive Engineer , CPWD , Parliament Works Divl . I , I.P. Bhawan , I.P. Estate, New Delhi instopping from services verbally w.e.f. 6-4-2000 in respect ofS /Sh. Suresh Kumar , Rajbir , Satish Chandra and Naresh , Sewerman who were working since 1-11-93 , 10-5-97,7-7-98 and 1-11-97 respectively instead of regularizing them in service and paying them equal pay for equal work like regular workers w.e.f. their respective date is legal and justified. The workmen applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award isgiven accordingly .

Date: 22-02-2007 .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 864.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-02-2007 को प्राप्तः हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/204/2004- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th February, 2007

S.O. 864. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. 74/2005 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour 1725 भारत काराजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[भाग II-सखंड (1 ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

CourtNo. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofCPWD, CPWD, Electrical Division No. X, and their wordenen, receivedby the Central Government on27-02-2007.

[No. L-42012/204/2004- IR(C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का14 ) की धारा 17 के जनु धिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबनिनोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में भी सरकार जोगिन अधिकरण नं. 2. नई दिल्ली के पेट 63/2003 ) को प्रकासित करती है, जो मेश्री सरकार को 27-02-2007 को प्राप्त ς:

[सं. एल-42012/213/2003- आई (सी- II ) ] BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT POUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI

अजय कुम्भधार गौड़, स्थाःअधिकारी R. N. Rai, PresidingOfficer.

New Delhi, the 27th February, 2007 I. D. No. 74/2006

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri M. F. Siddique,

C/o. All IndiaCPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan,

4823, Balbir Nagar Extension, Gali No. 13 , Shahadra, Delhi-110032.

S.O. 865 in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 63/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial,Dispute between the management of Central PublicWorksDepartment, Electrical Division, Kiran Elevator Service and their workmen , which was received by the CentralGovernment on 27-02-2007.

::

Versus

[Ne. L-42012/213/2002 -IR(C41)]

AJAYKUMAR GALIR, Denk Officer TheDirectorGeneral (Works) ,

CPWD

Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001 .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURTAL, NEW DELHI TheExecutive Engineer (Elect. ), CPWD, Electrical Division No. X, !,

R.N. Rai, Presiding Officer.

I. D. No. 63/2003

AndrewsGanj , NewDelhi.

PRESENT:

AWARD

...... lot party

Sh. Aditya Agarwal

2ndParty

Sh. Ghanshyam

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/204/ 2004 ( IR (C- II) Central Government dt. 04-08-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.

IN THE MATTER OF

Shri AnandKumar Goutam & Ors

The point runs as hereunder:-

C/o.General Secretary, ..

CPWD Karamchuri Union, Plot No. 1, AramBegs, Near Udasin Mandin,

Paharganj , New Delhi - 110055.

Versus

1. The ExecutiveEngineer,

CPWD(Elect.) Division,

Smt. Sucheta Kriplani Hospital & Medical College, New Delhi .

2. M/s . Kiran Elevator Service

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference was received on 12-08-2005.1-08-2005. Registerednoticeto the claimant was sent by the Desk Officer on 04-06-2005. Registered notice was sent to the workman on 23-08-2005 to file claim on 14-11-2005 but he did not file claims statement. Again notice was sent on 16-05-2006 to file claim on 19-06-2006 but the claimant did not turn up . Again on 12-01-2007 AR ofthe claimant was present but did not file claim statement: On 01-02-2007 also the workman applicant failed to file claim statement. The workman does not want to contest the case.

1:

No dispute award is given.

B-91, PandeyMag NearMother Diary Delhi

Delhi- 110092.

Date:19-02-2007.

R.N. RAI, PresidingOfficer

816G1/07-18 1726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] AWARD

The Ministry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/213 / 2002- IR ( CM - II ) Central Government Dt . 07-05-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :

That the workmen through their union also filed a claim before the ALC ( C) , Curzon Road, New Delhi for initiating th conciliation proceedings for directions to the management to regularize/ absorption in the establishment. The management was called in the conciliation proceedings and the management duly participated in the same but failed to settle the dispute and did not regularize the workmen in the establishment despite efforts made by the conciliation officer.

That after being satisfied the conciliation officer referred the dispute to this Hon'ble Tribunal for proper adjudication of the dispute . The appropriate Govt./ Concilition Officer referred the dispute vide referenceNo. L-42012/213/2003 - IR (CM - II).

"Whether the demand of the CPWD Karamchari Union (Regd. ) in relation to regularization/absorption ofthe services of S /Shri Anand Kumar Gautam and Mani Lal Sah , Contract Laboures through M/s . Kiran Elevator Service in CPWD, New Delhi who undertakes the job of operating the lifts in the establishment of Lady Harding Medical College and allied Hospitals, New Delhi is legal andjustified ? If yes, to what relief they are entitled to. "

It is, therefore , most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may pass an award in favour of the workmen and against the management directing the management to permanently absorp/ regularize the workmen in the establishment of CPWD since their respective date ofinitial appointment through contractor with consequential benefits in the matter of pay/emoluments and other benefits . Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

The workmen applicants have filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that workman No. 1 was initially inducted on 08-12-1995 and the workman No. 2was inducted on 14-04-1996 as Lift Operastor through the Private Contractor Management No. 2 for discharging thejob of operating the lift for the Principal Employer , management No. 1. It is stated that ever since their appointment they have been discharging their job deligently and sincerely for the management of CPWD having been posted at New Building Lady Harding Medical College and Smt . S. S. K. Hospital, New Delhi - 110001 under the Executive Engineer, Electrical i.e. management No. 2

That the nature of job discharged by both the workmen are perennial and permanent in nature and the job satisfy all the ingredients contained in Section 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970 work suiting abolition of contract labour in the said job. It is stated that the contract awarded by CPWD in favour of contractor for carrying out perennial nature ofjob is bad in law and the contract itself is vague which ought to be lifted in Industrial adjudication.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present dispute doesnot come under the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that the workmen were never employed by the management in their establishment . It is, further submitted that the workmen were engaged by a contractor and the work to them was given as per the contract agreedbetween the parties . Therefore , the present claim petition is totally false , frivolous and misconceived and gross abuse of process of this Hon'ble Court . Therefore , on the sole ground itself the present claim petition filed by the workmen is liable to be dismissed.

Thatthe workmen are placed under the direct control and supervision of Principal Employer and the contractor .has no role to play in day to day affairs of working ofthe workmen . It is stated that the nature ofjob performed by the workmen are similar to the workmen posted on regular basis and they work as if under the Principal Employer .

It is submitted that there is no relationship of employer and employee in existence in between the management and workmen . Therefore , the question of industrial dispute does not arise . Therefore, on this ground the claim petition of the workmen is liable to be dismissed.

That each ofthe workmen has completed 240 days in each year of working , requiring the establishment of Principal Employer to regularize them in the Principal Employer.

Thatthe workmen through the union send a demand notice to the management requesting therein for their regularization/absorption in the establishment of the CPWD since their respective date or appointment through contractor with consequential benefits but the management has neither replied nor complied with the said notice.

That this office has no knowledge in this regard as to whom the contractors engaged for the operation of the lifts during the periods . As per the condition of the contract and schedules of works (photocopy enclosed as Annexure - I & II) the contractor was paid for operation of the lifts on shifts basis . The labours were to be engaged by them accordingly . The terms of contract stipulated a recovery for non - operation of lift due to absence ofthe lift operating personnel . This office did not have a direct control over the labours engaged by the contractor.

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) )

The matter regarding abelition ofcositruot labour in CPWD had been taken up for hearing by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in various writ petitions for Abolition of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The Hon'ble High Court in their judgment dated26-05-2000 in CivilWrit Petition No.3741/ 1998 alongwith othbeCivil Writ Petitions mumserated therein (Ansacteure- III) have observed thus, "thesewrit petitions are accordingly disposed ofwith the following directions."

Ifthedecision is taken to sbolish the contract labour in particular job/ work /process in any of the offices/ establishments of CPWD [ as per terms of reference contained in resolution ofthe Supreme Court in Air India StatutoryCorporation (Supra )] such contactworkers would be entitled to be absorbed with CPWD and wouldbe entitled to claim the benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment. In case of the decision of the " appropriate government" is not to abolish contract labour system in any ofthe worldjobs/process in any offices /establishments ofCPWD the effect of that would be that contract labour system is permissible and in that eventuality CPWD shall have the right to deal with these contract workers in any manner it deems fit.

The exercise undertaken by the "appropriate government " u/ s 10 of the Act standing with the formation ofacommittee by resolution dated 30th March, 2000 should be completed as expéditiously as possible and in any case within a period ofsix months from today. There shall be no order to costs .

In pursuance of the above judgment, the Ministry of Labour vide their notification dated 31-07-2002 (Annexure- IV) have prohibited employment of contract labour in the processes, operation or works done by the certain category ofposts as enumerated therein . However, in the category of lift operator and other posts , the employment of contract labourhas not been prohibited and therefore employment ofcontract labour in these categories is in accordance with the law.

It isvehemently denied that the workmen employed bythe contractor are under the direct control of this office. Ithas alreadybeen stated against para 1 as above that this office has no role to play as regards their engagement to the work. It is for the contractor to supervise them and pass suitable instructions to them for specific task to be carried out as per the termis and scope of the contract .

There is no question of any regularization of services by the department as the workmen are the labours engaged by the contractors. It is for the contractor to know the periods for which any werkman has been engagedby him. Further there isno direct employer/employees relationship both the applicant and the management of CPWD . No contract labour is entitled to automatic absorption in view

1727

भारत परः चमत्र : कार्य 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Count of India Jailgabout dated 30-08-2001 in SAIL. Case .

9. That the demand of the CPWD Kacamphaci Union (Regd.) Shri Anand Kumar Gautam and Shri Mani Lal Sah isunjustifiedandillegal. It is, therefore , prayedao diemiss theirapplications which are devoid ofany merit.

Inview ofthe foregoing , it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Courtmay graciousty bepleasedto dismiss the claim petition fhed by the worinnen against the managenient with costs .

The workman applicant has filed sejoinder. In bis rejoinder he has reiterated the mouts Ferie clai statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . TheThe management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence of both the parties has been talk Boththepartieshave filed written arguments .

Itwas submitted that the workman Shri AundKornar Gautamwas initially induced on 08-12-1995 and Shri Mapi Lal Sah was inducted on 14-04-1996 as Lift Operator through the private contractor, management no , 2 for discharging the job of operating the lift for Principal Employer, management no. 1. They have been discharging their duties tilldate.

It was further submitted that the nature of job discharged by both the workmen is perennial and permanent in nature and the job satisfy all the ingredients contained in Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regaistion & Abolition) Act, 1970 work suiting abolition of contract labour in the said jobs. It is stated that thecontent awarded byCPWD in favour ofcontractor for carrying out pres nature ofjob is bad in daw and the contract levile vigse which ought to be lifted in Industrial adjudition, Itwas further submitted that the workanes are placed under the direct control and anpervision, of Principel Employer and the contractor has no role to play in day to dayaffairs ofworking of the workmen, It is sisted that the nature ofjob performed bythe workmen are similar tothe workmen posted on regular basis and they work as ifunder the Principal Employer.

It was submitted from the side of the manag that the mattermatter regarding abolition of contract lahong in CPWD had been taken up for hearing by the Họn 'ble High Court of Delhi in various writ petitions for abolition of Contract Labour(Reguition & Abolition) Act, 1970. The Hon'bleHigh Court in their judament dated 26-05-2000 in CivilWrit PetitionNo.3741/1998 alongwith clue Civil Wit Petitions enumerated therein (Annexure- II) have observed thus,"thesewrit petitions are accordingly dispenst ofwith thefollowing directions ." 1728

Ifthe decision is taken to abolish the contract labour in particular job / work/ process in any of the offices/ establishments of CPWD [ as per terms of reference contained in resolution of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation ( Supra) ] such contract workers would be entitled to be absorbed with CPWD and would be entitled to claim the benefits in terms of the aforesaid judgment. In case of the decision of the " appropriate government" is not to abolish contract labour system in any of the works /jobs/ process in any offices/ establishments of CPWD the effect of that would be that contract labour system is permissible and in that eventuality CPWD shall have the right to deal with these contract workers in any manner it deems fit .

The exercise undertaken by the " appropriate government" u/s 10 of the Act standing with the formation ofacommittee by Resolution dated 30th March , 2000 should be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today . There shall be no order to costs .

MWI has admitted that the work of Lift Operator is a permanent nature ofjob . There are already 9 workmen working. The workmen are still working in the department . From the categorical admission of the management witness it becomes quite obvious that the work is of permanent nature and the workmen are still discharging their duties . There is work of 9 workmen .

The case of the management is that the workmen are engaged through contractors . In case the work is of perennial and permanent nature , contract labour should not be engaged .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that in view of Uma Devi 2006 SCC (L& S) 753 no question ofregularization arises . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case has also emphasized that the Courts/Tribunals in their sympathy for the handful adhoc/ casual employees before it cannot ignore the claims for equal opportunity for the teening millions of the country who are also seeking employment . In such case, the Courts/Tribunals should adhere to the constitutional norms and should not water down constitutional requirement in any way.

Ithasbeenheld in 2006 SCC ( L & S) 753. " one aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointment ( not illegal appointments ) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa , R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. "

It has been held in ( 1992) 4 SCC 118 . "Regularization- Ad hoc/Temporary govt . employees-

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II SEC. 3 ( ii )) Principles laid down- Those eligible and qualified and continuing in service satisfactorily for long period have a right to be considered for regularization-Long continuance in service gives rise to a presumption about need for a regular post-But mere continuance for one year or so does not in every case raise such a presumption Govt. should consider feasibility of regularization having regard to the particular circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy for the concerned person ." " Labour Law-Regularization-Work charged/ casual /daily wage workers-In case of long continuance in service presumption for regular need of service would arise obliging authority concerned to consider with a positive mind feasibility of regularization-Statutory / public corporations should also follow suit. "

It was submitted from the side of the management that a Court or a Tribunal has no power to direct regularization of services of adhoc employees . It can at the most direct the management to frame a scheme for regularization of services of the employees and consider such adhoc employees in accordance with the scheme after considering vacancies , qualifications , seniority among similarly placed employees and past record including attendance etc.

In Uma Devi's case the Constitution Bench has categorically laid down that in case workmen have been working continuously for 10 years and not on the basis of orders of Courts , their cases may be considered for regularization.

The Tribunal has to examine relationship between the management and the workmen . It is to be examined whether there exists master and servant relation or not. It has been held in 1999 Lab IC 825 that the Tribunal can give findings that contract between the Company and its contractors is sham and bogus . The finding will not obviously abolish the contract labour system so the matter referred to here is regarding the factual finding whether contract is sham and bogus . There is no reference regarding abolition of contract labour.

In the present case also almost 2 workmen have been working since 1995/1996 . The contractors have changed every year as per the admission of the management witness. 2workmen have been performing work since 1995/96 . The workmen worked in the establishment of the management . The management has control and supervision over the contractor'smen , the workmen remaining the same. The contract is changed every year so certainly this is a facade of the papers and contract is camouflage and sham and bogus . The entire establishment is owned and maintained by the management where the contractor's men are employed. The contract is not genuine one .

1729

24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[अल - खंड 3(ii) ]

सबपत्र :

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that theCLIRA 37 of 1970 isan act to father social welfare and general interest ofthe community . The contract Jubour is tobe abolishedwhenever the contract is found sham and not genuine. In the instant pasp the contractor is only wame giver.Theworkmon are under the control and supervision . ofthe management.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SCI-workman ARI Ltd , Versus ARI Ltd. Bhaw Nagar that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the reality behind the facade ofpaper arrangement ofcontract labour system so according to the judgment of the Apex Court the Tribunal can examine the genuineness or otherwise of the contract labour . I find no force in the argument ofthe management.

contractor it is a mere ruse /camoufinge and if it is found that the contractor se only amanse lender the managemont should be directed to regularize the workmen . In JT 2003 (1 ) SC 465tfie Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that industrial adjudication appropriate roimotly for the alleged contract workers. In (2000) I SCC 126 the Hon'ble. Supreme Court has held that there are multiple pragmatic approach/factors which should be considered indeciding employer and employee relationship . According to the criteria there should be control and integration. The management has doubtless control over the alleged contractor's men as they work in the establishment ofthe management. They are integrated to the service ofthe management. There are no terms and conditions ofthe contract so there is master and servant relationship . The creation ofcontract labour is only sham and camouflage and the employer cannot be relieved ofhis liabilities.

Itwas further submited that the management is an instrumentality of the Central Government. They are charged with the duties of discharging their functions in a fair and just manner. They are expected to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capricatiously. The management has not been acting fairly impartially and reasonably . It is their dutyto act fairly, Contracters have been changed but the workmen remain the same . It is almost the admitted case ofthe management .

InJT 1999(2) SC 435 the Hon'ble Supreme Court hasheld that ifthework is ofpecunial nature or of sufficient duration, contract workers shall be considered to be the direct employees of the managerment and they ape entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of the management. The work in the instant case, no doubt, is of perennial nature as the workmen have been continuously working since 1993. It is for sufficient duration. So the alleged contractor's men will become the servant of the management . The management has some vested interest i.e. why the management is continuing the workmen since 1993 and in order to veil this reality the management is giving the name of several contractors every year . The management is doing violent injustice to the workmen. They have been deprived of the facilities and emoluments of regular employees since 1993. The intermediary has been introduced in order to deprive the workmen of their rights . Thework is not of seasonal nature . Such workomen should notbe deprived of their legitimate right. ! :

TheHon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 3527 has held that the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contract has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under the genuine contract or whether it is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder. If the contract is not genuine the alleged contract labour should be treated as the employees ofthe principal employerwho shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. In the instant case it is proven fact that the contractors are mere name givers andjob lenders . The workman work under the control and supervision ofthe management .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that theworkmen are the contractor's men and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to regularize the workmeri . Only the Central Government can abolish the contract labour and direct for regularization of the contractor's men . There is no merit in the argument of the management . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of cases has decided that it is the duty of industrial adjudicator to examine and give findings whether contract labour is shem and a mere camouflage to evade the responsibility ofthemanagement.

In Pollock's Law of Torts a serverit and an independent contractor has been defined as under:

It has been held in AIR 1953 SC 404 that if a master employs a servant and authorize him to employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for cash consideration , the employees thus appointed by the servant will be equally with the employer servant of the masters . In the instant case there is no servant to employ a number of persons . The name ofthe contractor is fake one . The workmen have been retained in the service ofthe management since 1995/ 96.2workmen have been working continuously since 1995/ 96 and they have become an asset to the management..

The distinction between a servant and a independent contractor hasbeen the subject wiatter of a largevolume of case- law from which the text-book writers en torts have attemptedtolay down some general tests. For example, in It has beenheld in 1997 AIR SCW Page430that the industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid 1730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

Pollock's Law of Torts , ( Pages 62 & 63 of Pollock on Torts , 15th Edn. ) the distinction has thus been brought out:

"A master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end of his work, but directs or at any moment may direct the means also, or, as it has been put, retains the power of controlling the work , a servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result but so that in the actual execution of the work is not under the order or control of the person for whom he does it, and may use his own discretion in things not specified beforehand

In Salmond's Treatise on the Law of Torts the distinction between a servant and independent contractor has been indicated as under :-

"What then , is the test of this distinction between a servant and an independent contractor ? The test is the existence of a right of control over the agent in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done . A servant is an agent who works under the supervision and direction of his employer ; an independent contractor is one who is his own master . A servant is a person engaged to obey his employer's orders from time to time ; an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to exercise his own discretion as to the mode and time of doing ithe is bound by his contract, but not by his employer's orders ."

The management retains the power of controlling the work so the workmen are the employees of the respondent/management .

The test regarding independent contractor and intermediaries have been laid down in Hussainabhai , Calicut V. theAlath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode { AIR 1978 SC 1410 ( 3 Judges ) } " the true test may , with brevity, be indicated once again . Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another , that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers subsistence , skill , and continued employment . If he, for any reason , chokes off, the worker is , virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom the workers have immediate or direct relationship as contract is of no consequence when , on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment , we discern the naked truth , though draped in differentperfect paper arrangement , that the real employer is the management , not the immediate contractor . Myriad devices , half-hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed , the type

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] ofindustry, the local conditions andthe like may be resorted to when labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer , based on Articles 38 , 39, 42, 43 and 43 -A of the Constitution . The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances ."

The case law has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench Judgment in Steel Authority of India. In case the securityjob chokes off, the workmen would be laid off. Such contract is prohibited ; it is not a contract for a given result.

My attention was drawn to the Constitution Bench Judgment in Scale (2006) 4 Scale . It has been held in this case as under :-

" A. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic has to be as set down by theConstitution and the laws made thereunder . Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . Thus , any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme .

B. A sovereign government , considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages . Going by a law newly enacted, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act , 2005 , the object is to give employment to at least one member of a family for hundred days in an year , on paying wages as fixed under that Act . But , a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts , at a particular point oftime, are to be filled up and the filling up ofthose vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule .

My attention was drawn to another Constitution Bench Judgment-Steel Authority of India. It has been held as under :-

"Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor , he merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workmen . But where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor , either because he has undertaken to produce a given 1731 [भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question mig IOC arise whether the contract is a mere camouflage as in Hussainabhai Calicut's case(supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation's case (supra) etc; if the answer is in the affirmative, the workmen will be in fact an employee ofthe principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative, the workmen will be a contract labourer."

According to well reorganisation definition of contract it is an agreement for a given result. The result should be visible . Contriict labourers Cho'be engaged for thework of contractor only and not for the work ofany establishment. In the present case the work is of the establishment and not ofthe contractor. The supply oflabour byacontractor is against human dignity. No one canbe a supplier ofhuman labourto any establishment. It isthe duty of State to give employment to citizen and not ofthe contractors . Contractors cannot supply labour to any establishment.

In the instant case the workmen have not beenhired in connection with the work of a contractor but they have been hiredbythe contractor for the work ofthe respondents . So in the instant case there is contract of service between the principal employer and the workmen . In view of the judgment the workmen become the employees of the management.

In view of the above discussion it becomes quite obvious that the contractors workmen in the instant case have been retained all along and contractors have been changed. So the contractor is only a label ofa bottle. This label is changed from time to time but the contents ofthe bottle always remain the me. The correctors have boon changed and the Workmen have been retained. Such a system is in -human . The contractors are the direct employees of the respondent/ management.

From the foregoing it becomes quite obvious that these two workmen have been working regularly and even without artificial breaks since 1995-96. The contract is camouflage. There is direct relation of master and servant between the respondent and the workmen.

In Uma Devi's case, the Hon'ble, Apex Court has directed that ifthe workmen have been working for 10 years regularly and without orders of Court the Government should consider feasibility of their regularization , but the government has not considered so . These workmen have worked for more than 11 years . Their services have not beenregularized, so the workmen deserve regularization withintwo months from the date ofpublication ofthe award.

The Constitution Bench Judgment ofSteel Authority of India is squarely applicable in the instant case. In JT 2001 (7) SC 268 it has been held that " 121 (5) On issuance ofprohibition notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought IOC before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground ofhaving undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder . Ifthe contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so - called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned."

Thereference is replied thus

It has been held in this case that whether there is prohibition of contract labour or otherwise the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question and in case the contract appears ruse and camouflage to evade compliancewith various beneficial legislations the so -called contract labour will have to be treated as the employee of the principal employer and he shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract workers .

Thedemand ofthe CPWD Karamchari Union (Regd. ) in relation to regularization/absorption of the services of S/Shri Anand Kumar Gautam and Mani Lal Sah , Contract Labourers through M/s . Kiran Elevator Service in CPWD, NewDelhiwho undertakes the job of operating the lifts in the establishment of Lady Harding Medical College and alliedHospitals , New Delliris legal andjustified. The above named workmen deserve regularization, The respondent no. 1 should regularize the workmen on the post of Lift Operators from the date of the award..

`Award is given accordingly.

Dated:21-02-2007.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer Engagement of contract workers for perennial and regular nature ofjob is prohibited. The security function is aperennial nature ofjob . So long as the respondents exists there wouldbe need of security for them, so the work is of existing, continuous and perennial in nature for such work contract workers cannot be employed.

1732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II -SEC . 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

New Delhi in not regularizing the services/granting permanent status and not paying equal pay for equal work to E.Clerk S/ Sh . Sushil Kumar working since 8-1-96 , Raman Kanojiya working since 8-1-96 and Akhilesh Kumar working since 1-8-96 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

का.आ. 866.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Theworkmen applicants have filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the details of the above workmen who have been employed as Inquiry Clerk are given as under:

[सं. एल -42012/40/2001- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 27th February , 2007

Name ofWorkman Shri Sushil Kumar , Father's Name Shri Dashrath Singh , educational qualification-graduate, Age 27 years, date of employment- 8-1-96 , designation- Enquiry Clerk equivalent to LDC attached with Sub . Division Asst . Engineer- IV payment Rs . 1,900 per month .

S.O. 866. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 27-02-2007 .

Name of Workman Shri Ramesh Kanojia, Father's Name Shri Girdhari Lal , Educational qualification 10 + 2 , age - 29 years , date fo employment- 8-1-1996 , designation Enquiry Clerk equivalent to the LDC , monthly payment-Rs . 1,900 per month attached with Sub . DivisionAsst. Engineer- IV .

[No. L-42012/40/2001 - IR(C- II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Name of workman Shri Akhilesh Kumar , Father's Name Shri Chhota Lal , educational qualification ---BA , age 28years ,date ofemployment 1-8-98, designation Enquiry Clerk equivalent to LDC , wages per month- Rs . 1,900 attached with the Sub . Division Asst . Engineer- IV.

R.N. Rai , Presiding Officer 1.D. No. 74/2001

All the above workmen have been performing their duties as Enquiry Clerk equivalent to LDC in the Sub . Division- IV , Parliament Work Division - III .

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Sushil Kumar & Others , C/ o General Secretary.

That the qualification of LDC is matriculate given by the management and in this case the workmen are having more higher qualification than fixed for the post of clerk .

CPWD Mazdoor Union , E-26 (Old Qtrs . ) , Raja Bazar , Baba Kharak Singh Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

Versus

That all the workmen have been performing their duties equivalent to regular LDC/ Enquiry clerk posted in different Divisions under the CPWD.

The Executive Engineer ,

Parliament Works Division - III , CPWD , I.P. Estate ,

Thatthe above workmen were denied even minimum wages as the above workmen are also entitled to the equal pay for equal work.

New Delhi- 110002.

AWARD

That in CPWD all the daily rated workmen whose designation were given a Hand Receipt/ Muster Roll were being paid equal pay for equal work.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -42012/40/ 2001 - IR ( C- II) Central Governmentdt . 10-09-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :

That the management with a viewto deny the status and privileges of permanent workman retain them on daily rated which is unfair labour practice as envisaged in Item No. 10, V Schedule under Section 2 ( ra) of the ID Act and violation of the said provision has a penalty for committing "Whether the action of the Executive Engineer , Parliament Works Division III , CPWD , I.P. Estate , 1733

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007 9 : 3; ,192913 A

[ भाग 11 खंड 3(il) ]

unfair labour practice under Section 950 and 31 of the said Act. The same is reproduced neunder:

That this dilon'ble Goutte eradicate the unfsislabour practice foremploying the wordsmenn онайте tеmресту as the workinen also fulfilling all the conditions as they were employed after taking proper interview and anstand : workmen were within the jurisdiction ofthe seaanuarihed fortheir employment in regular categories and also having " xxx. 10. To employ, workmen as ' badlis' casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years , with the object ofdepriving them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen." xxx

educational qualifications to regularize their services. That the workmen are entitled fen are entitled for regulerization of That the duty was taken from the workmen by the Executive Engineer, Asst. Engineer and F.E. and also attendance was marked by the concerned officers of the division .

their services/granting, permanent , status and also equal pay for equal work being a daily rated workmen as per the policy, and judgement of Hon'ble, Supreme Court dated 17 January, 1986 all the workmen of CPWD we getting the wages except increment from the date of their initial employment so these workmen are, also entitled equalpayfromthe date oftheir initial employment.

That less payment of the minimum wages is a force labour and in CPWD LDCs were also performing duties of clerical nature and have been getting their wages in the time scale ofRs . 3050-4590 and the workmen S/Sh . Sushil Kumar, Raman Kanojia and Akhilesh Kumar are also entitled to be regularized in the proper time seale of Rs.3050-4590.

That these workmen have been performing their duties directly under the supervision and control of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer concerned.

That the management has indulged in unfair labour practice while employing the workmen as badlis or casual with the object ofdepriving them ofthe status and privilege ofpermanent workmen are entitled to be regularized in the time scale by the management. :

TheManagement has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been suited thất tiể chảimants/ workmen are not falling under the đếnifition of "workman" as per the provisionsons of the Industriat Disputes Act, 1947 andthe present claim underunder repty is not mattainable before this Hon'ble Tribunal. It is respectfulty submitted that the answering management has never appointed engaged the claimants/workmen herein . There exist no employer employeerelationship between the answering marugoment and the workmen since the claimants wohandrenoutloyed by the CPWD Management, and hence, it is respectfully submitted that present claim of the claimants/workmen under reply is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone.

That the claimants/workmon have, no cause of action in their favour and against the management , It 浸け respectfully submitted that the claimants/workpson, were never engaged by the answering respondent at any point of timefor any work and therefore, the workmen have no cause ofaction against the answering management and in, their favour and bhence, presont claim under reply is liable to be turned down by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alenoo

That the workmen have raised the disputes of regularization and grant of equal pay for equal work before theAssistant Labour Commissioner on 2nd February, 2000' then the services of workmen were terminated w.e.f. 14-6-2000 without aking prior permission under Section 33 of the ID Act and the management did not pay even one month wages in lieu of one month notice , notice pay, compensation so on behalf of workmen complaint under Section 33A of ID Act were also filed before the Conciliation Officer . Copy of the statement of claim regarding regularization of their services dated 2nd Feb. 2000 and also the complaint under Section 33A of ID Act dated 27-7-2000 are enclosed as Annexure-A and Annexure -B respectively with this statement of claim.

That the management did not take prior permission fromAssistant Labour -cam-Conciliation Officer (Central): as the dispute for regularization etc. were pending before him and the workmen directly connected with the dispute so without taking prior permission under Section 33 ( 1 ) (b) verbal order of termination dated 14-6-2000 ismon est and non -operative and the workmen is entitled to get their wages.

That the present claim ofthe claimants /workmen is bad for non-jolader of the necessary party for just and proper adjudication ofthe matter. It is respectfully submitted that the claimants/workrnen herein were engaged by some contractor and the payment were received by them from the contracter to whom certain work was awarded.It is submitted that the workmen herdin have failed to make the said contractor a necessary party for the just and proper adjudication of the matter by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The workmen have not even disclosed the name (s ) of the said contractor(s) ,Hence, it is respectfully submitted that the present claim ofthe claimants/workmen under reply is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, the claim in its present form, is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone. IT That this Hon'ble Tribunal as per Itern 7 of 3rd Schedule under Section 7A of the Industrial Disputes:Act has its jurisdiction to classify the workmen as regular and permanent.

That the, present claim ofthe workmen, is tima barred and therefore, not maintainable without prejudice to i 816G1/07-19 1734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

rights and contention of the answering management, it is respectfully submitted that the claim of the workmen that they received less wages is time barred . Answering management has not received and complaint in this regard from the applicant .

Thatthe workmen/claimants herein have come before thisHon'ble Tribunal by concealing material facts which are necessary any essential for just and proper adjudication ofthe matter . It is respectfully submitted that the claimants herein were engaged by the contractor( s) and not by the answering management . However, this fact was knowingly and deliberately concealed by the claimants herein from thisHon'ble Tribunal . Hence, the present claim under reply is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground alone.

Since the selection of LDC is done by Staff Selection Commission through its process of recruitment and selection . Further, there is no recognized category of Enquiry Clerk and hence, there is no sanctioned post of Enquiry Clerk in Department. Hence , the claim under reply is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on this ground also.

That the contents of Para No. 1 of the claim are a matter of record and therefore , need no reply.

That the contents of Para No. 2 of the statement of claim are denied. In reply to this para, it is respectfully submitted that the answering respondent has never engaged the claimants herein at any point of time for performing the duty of Enquiry Clerk in Sub- Division IV of Parliament Works Division - III and also there is no sanctioned post of ' Enquiry Clerk' in the department. As a matter of fact , the management generally enters into an agreement with various contractors from time to time for certain works to be executed after call of tenders . The contract contains various terms and conditions including the tenure of contract . amount to be paid to the contractor atthe end of the execution of the work , etc. The answering respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to elaborate and explain the detailed terms and conditions at appropriate stage of hearing . The contractor receives payment directly from the answering management for execution of work as per the terms and conditions of the contract . Therefore , the contents of Para - 2 under reply is wrong, false and fabricated and therefore , denied .

That the content of Para - 3 of the claim under reply are false , frivolous , misconceived and denied . It is categorically denied that the claimants herein have been performing their duties as Enquiry Clerk equivalent to LDC in the Sub -Division - IV . Parliament Works Division - II . In reply to this para , it is respectfully submitted that the answering management has never engaged any person for performing the duty of Enquiry Clerk as there is no recognized category of Enquiry Clerk in the department and therefore , it is wrong to allege that the workmen herein

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] have performing their duties as Enquiry Clerk equivalent to LDC. The duties of LDCs of CPWD are diary/dispatch, preparation ofpay bills of Work- charged Staff, contractors' bills, typing works , etc. But , the persons who work in Enquiry Office do write down the complaint , attend telephone calls , transfer the complaints from Complaint Register to complaint registers of various sections etc. Therefore , it is quite clear that the work of an LDC cannot be compared to as claimed by the workmen . Here it may also be added that in one similar case of Shri Chandrasekharan and others , the Principal Bench , New Delhi of the CAT, in their judgement dated 1-3-2000 (copy enclosed) held as under :-

"The applicants rely upon the judgement in Ram Nath Singh V. Union of India , OA 712/91 decided on 5-5-93 by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has given a direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants therein for regularization in the post of clerk on the ground that they had rendered 240 days services each in the two consecutive years . In the above case also the applicants were Beldars . But it is seen from the judgement that the Tribunal has not kept in view the applicability of the recruitment rules which, in our view, are material for the purpose of appointment and regularization in the post of clerks . There is no discussion in this regard. In Shri Jetha Anand and Others . Vs. Union of India and others , Full Bench Judgements CAT Vol . I/Page - 353 , (Bahri Brothers), the Principal Bench held that a Railway servant can be reverted , even if he was promoted and had been working in the promoted post since a long time , ifhe was not qualified in the Selection test for being appointed, as per the relevant recruitment rules . The same ratio applies to any post where the post is governed by the recruitment rules. The OA, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed " .

That the contents of para no . 4 of the statement of claim are misconceived , wrong and bence denied. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the selection to the post of LDC is done through open competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission through its process of recruitment and selection and the answering respondent has no saying the selection process of the S.S.C. It is a common knowledge that for the post of LDC in addition to required educational qualification one has to go through various selection tests conducted by the S.S.C. The claimants in this dispute with a malafide motive want to have backdoor entry without going through the Selection Process of S.S.C.

That the contents of para 5 of the statement of claim under reply are wrong , misconceived, and hence denied . It is vehemently denied that the workmen herein have been performing their duties equivalent to regular LDC posted 735

भारत का राबवत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1920

[भाग II- खंड 30 ) ]

mentioned in the contract documentetor has agreed to do the jobthe job at requielt try tubigent and as such, the worlowes donmetlowes domus by thos and conditions of the contract and nequin of unfair labour practice

control gement bas po pomen and The management ha engaged by the contractor and , eifi to the contractor in terms & conditions of the pondrect an the payment was also made directly to the coctor for thework doneby him .

in different divisions ofthe CPWD. In reply to this para, it is submitted that without prejudice to its rights and contentions of the sespondent that there is no recognized category of Enquiry Clerk in the department and therefore there is no sanctioned post of Enquiry Clerk, as such, in the department and the duty of LDC recruited through S.S.C. oannot be equated with persons noting down complaints ofallottees. The duties ofLDCs ofCPWD are diary/dispatch, preparation of pay bills of Work-charged staff, contractor bills , typing work etc. But persons who work inEnquiryOffice to write down the complaints, attend telephone calls , transfer the complaints from Complaint Register toComplaint Registers ofvarious sections , etc. It is quite clear that the work of an LDC cannotbe compared to as claimed by the workmen.

P

That the content of Part 9 of the are misconceived and thirefore để đời . In reply to the pain, it is submitted that the work we woulous contractor's and all necessity inftruala Trading the works are given by the Worangerunt to the respective contractor only! The vormi adduntial of the contracts were expres. The words space in the contract were clearly unifi probisely suited. The thee and amount tobe paid was also expressieli auna. Alt die jobs related to a particular contract is being given to the contractor concerned and the contactor, in turg, takes the duty from his workmen ,workmen, if any, and not the answering management, The answering management only supervise the progress of the work and regular ingetyals as and when necessary before payment to the contractorThere was no direct control ofthe management of CP Doxer the persons engaged by the contractor as have been stated in, Para-8 above.

That the contents of Para Nos. 6 & 7 of the claim under reply are false, frivolous , misconceived, baseless and hence denied. In reply to this para, it is submitted that theworkmen herein were never engaged by the answering management as mentioned in the foregoing paras of this reply. The answering management has no control over the process of engagement of workers by the contractor for execution of work awarded to them . There are clear cut provisions in the contract that the works to be performed bythe contractor as per the terms and conditions laid down inthe contract and the amount payable to them for the job done etc. Further , so far as the daily rated workmen ofthe CPWD are concerned, the claimant herein cannot be equated or compared with the hand receipt/mustor roll workers of CPWD. The claimants were never appointed by the answering management at any point of time .

יו

That the contents of Para - 10 of the claim are misconceived , wrong and therefore,fore, denied.As have bee statedI in the preliminary objections and as per special conditions of the contract , there is no question of less payment . As have been stated in the aforesaid paforesaid para, the management of CPWD entered into an agreement with the contracterwith expeess terms and conditions, for a fixed sumof money and Sona fixed timbamba upeole joboo be done and the dentractor was paid in termarianuboonditions of the contract and as such, there isnotaquiettini of either payment ofless payment by the management to the persons employed by the contractor

That the contents of Para No. 8 of the claim under reply are false, wrong, frivolous , misconceived, and denied . It is categorically denied that the answering management with a view to deny the status and privilege of permanent workmen retain them on daily rated which is unfair labour practice as envisaged in item 10 of fifth schedule under Section2 ( ra) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and rest ofthe para ofthe claim is denied as misconceived, irrelevant to this present case as there is no violation of the said provisions of the Act. In reply to this para, it is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as the foregoing para of the present reply on merits may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding paras ofthe claim which are not repeated here for the sake brevity.

The departmentent hashas nono controlcontrol whenwhatsoeve ons engaged by the contractor as have b 10 on the s have been stated in persons Para- 8 above. Action for any breach of the contract was as per terms and conditions ofof the contract and as such , the management lias no direct control or supervision of the persons employed by the contractor . The job performed by the LDC's of the answerina manastaan jy be equated with that of the workmen berein and the clean of the workmen for regularisation is baselessbase and therefore , strongly denied as they have nevernever engaged by the Answering Managemя

Again, the contents of Paww 10+ of thechains (which has beenagain mentioned by the claininnt in the Sustent It is also submitted that the claimants were never engaged directly or indirectly by the management ofCPWD nor have any control on them as the contract provides for running of Enquiry Office round the clock and direct control cannot be possible round the clock a duty of officers of management is for 8 hours a day . As such , there is no question of giving any status and privilege to the persons under reference. The mariagement has only entered into an agreement after call oftenders expressely to do the work as 1736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

make applicable the provisions of Section -33 of the I.D Act . As the persons employed by the contractor were never employed by the answering management, therefore, there is not question of termination of their services . Therefore, the allegations made by the claimants are false, frivolous and behemently denied .

That the contents of Para No. 14 of the claim are misconceived and denied . In reply to this para, it is submitted that there is no basis on which these workmen have to be classified. The contents of preliminary objections aswell as the reply on merits in aforesaid para may be read as part and parcel of the reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not being repeated herein for the sake ofbrevity.

ofclaims) are false , frivolous , misconceived and thereforè , denied . In reply to this para, it is submitted that the workmen engaged by the contractor have never performed their duties directly under the control of the management . As have been stated in the aforesaid paras, the contractor was assigned a specific job and paid for the same after satisfactory completion of the same job . The terms and conditions of the job were mentioned in the agreement entered with the contractor and the progress of the work was only supervised by the answering management at regular intervals of time as and when felt necessary and the payment were regulated to the contractor as per terms and conditions . As such , the department had never any direct control of supervision over the persons employed by the contractor . As have been stated in Para 8 per conditions of contract , the contractor was required to run the enquiry office round the clock whereas officials of Management are available for 8 hours , as such , there was no direct control of management . As such, the claim is false , frivolous , mis - conceived and denied .

That the contents of para - 11 of the claim under reply are false, wrong, frivolous , misconceived and denied. It is categorically denied that the answering management has indulged in unfair labour practice while employing the workmen as badlis or casual with the object to depriving them of the status and privilege ofpermanent workman . It isvehemently denied that the workmen are entitled to be regularised in the time scale by the management.

That the contents of Para No. 15 of the claim are false , frivolous , wrong and denied . In reply to this para , it is submitted that the answering management has never employed the workmen herein and has never indulged in unfair labour practice . It is categorically denied that the answering management has never conducted any interview/ test of the workmen herein in terms of regular conditions of employment . It is further submitted that the workmen are not entitled for regularisation/employment in regular categories . It is a common knowledge that after fulfilling the required age and qualification , a candidate has to go through various tests/interview conducted by the Staff Commission for the appointment of a regular sanctioned post . Therefore , the contents of para No. 15 of the claim are denied .

In reply to this para it is submitted that the submissions made in the preliminary objections as well as in the foregoing paras of the present reply on merit may be read as part and parcel of reply to the corresponding para of the claim which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

That the contents of Para No. 16 of the claim are misconceived , frivolous , contrary to records and therefore , vehemently denied . It is categorically denied that the workmen herein are entitled for regularisation of their service/granting permanent status and also equal pay for equal work. Rest ofthe para is misconceived and therefore denied. In reply to this para , it is submitted that the workmen herein have no cause of action whatsoever against the answering management and therefore , they art entitled for any relief whatsoever.

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder . In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments oftheir claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

Inreply to this para, it is submitted that as have been stated in the aforesaid paras , the management entered into an agreement with the contractor for doing a particular work which has been expressly stated by the management in the contract documents with conditions and the contractor has agreed to do that specific work at a fixed rate of amount and the same was to be got done in terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the management and the contractor . As such , the provision of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 are not applicable in this particular case . Since , there was no provisions in the contract document that who is to be employed by the contractor , the contractor may employ any persons of his choice which is required that the conditions of the contract should be fulfilled . As such , the management has no authority that the provision of Section -33 of the I.D. Act are made applicable in the present case . As have been stated in the preliminary objections , the provisions of I.D. Act are not at all applicable in this present case . As such , the department has no authority to ask the contractor to

It was submitted from the side of the workmen applicants that Shri Sushil Kumar was engaged on the post ofInquiry Clerk equivalent of LDC on monthly payment of Rs . 1900 from 08-01-1996 . Shri Raman Kanoujiya was engaged on the same post w.e.f. 08-01-1996 on the monthly *1737

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

services are Integrated to the management. The contractor has no role to play in such circumstancesi wages ofRs . 1900 per month and Shri Akhilesh Kumarwas engaged on the same post w.e.f. 01-08-1998@ Rs . 900 per month. The workmen worked up to 14-06-2000 . Their services were terminated when they raised dispute for regularization and grant of equal pay for equal work before the ALC on 02-02-2000 : They have not been paid retrenchment compensation whereas they have worked continuously for the period of their engagement .

It was submitted from the side of the management that in view of Uma Devi 2006 SCC (L & S)753 no question ofregularization arises . The Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the same case has also emphasized that the Courts/Tribunals intheir sympathy for the handful ad hốc/ casual employees before it cannot ignore the claims for equal opportunity for the teeming millions of the country who are so seeking employment. In such case , the Courts/ Hornuals should adhere to the constitutional norms and should not water down constitutional requirement in anyway.way It was further submitted that the complaint has been filed u/s 33 of the ID Act and the management did not pay even one month's wages in lieu ofnotice . No compensation has been paid to these workmen whereas they have worked for more than 240 days in the years of their employment 1996,97,98 and 99,

It was further submitted that the contract is camouflage.Theworkmen worked under the control ofthe JE. Their services were integrated to the management and payment was made to them by the management, contractor is onlyaname giver . :

Ithasbeenheld in 2006 SCC (L & S) 753 , " one aspect needs to be clarified . There may be cases where Irregular appointment (not illegal appointments ) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above of dutyove of duty qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders ofofthe courts or of tribunals

The management witness has admitted in his cross examination that the management has awarded the contract. for writing day to day complaints by skilled werkers .He has further stated that he could not identify the signature ofJE on photocopy of attendance register sheet mark A- 1 to24.

It has been held in ( 1992 ) 4 SCC 118 . "Regularization-Ad hoc/Temporary goyt , employees- Principles laiddown-Those eligible and qualified and continuing in service satisfactorily for long period have a right to be considered for regularization-Long continuance in service gives rise to a presumption about need for a regular post-But mere continuance for one year or so does not in every case raise such a presumption- Govt. should consider feasibility of regülarization having regard to the particular circumstances with a positive approach and an empathy for the concerned person ." MW1 is presumed to know the signature of the JE on markA - 1 to 24 and he should have verified the signature of JE or he should have denied his signature . This evasive reply indicates that the JE has signed the photocopy of the attendance register.The management might have produced the original shects of attendance register to deny the fact that it contains the signature ofJE .

" Labour Law Regularization Work charged/ casual /daily wage workors In case of long continuance in service presumption for regalar need of service would arise obliging authority concerned to copsider with a positivemind feasibility ofregularization Statutory/public corporations should also follow suit. "...

MW1 has further admitted that Shri Paramiit Lal , JE wasposted in this division and inquiry office is situated in the premises ofCPWD. He has further admitted that the workmen were engaged for day to day complaints as per scope of the contract. The minor complaints were carried out by the work charge employees and major complaints arewrittenby the contractor's men . He has further admitted that payment was made to the workmen in the presence of the JE concerned.

13 It was further submitted that it is admitted case that the work of inquiry is being done on out sourcing basis.

The Tribunal has to examine relationship between the management and the workmen. It is to be examined whether there exists master and servant relation or not. It hasbeenheld in 1999 Lab. IC 825 that the Tribunal can give findings that contract between the Company and its contractors is sham and bogus . The finding will not obviously abotish the contract labour system so the matter referred to here is regarding the factual finding whether contract is sham and bogus . There is so reference regarding abolition ofcontract labour .

The substantial question is whether the contractor has engaged the workers for his own work or for the work ofthe management , In the instant case writing ofcomplaints is the work ofmanagement and the contractor has engaged these workmen not for his own work but for work of the management . In such circumstances the workmen become direct employees of the management as they have been engaged by the management. They worked under the control and supervision of the management and their

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe workinten that the CLRA 37 of 1970 is an actto further social welfare and general interest of the community. The contract labour is to be abolished whenever the contract is found sham and notgenuine. In the instant case the contractor is only name 1738

giver. The workmen are under the control and supervision ofthe management . There is no proof that money is paid to the contractor and the contractor pays to its workmen . The management makes payment of wages to the workmen directly.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SCI - workman ARI Ltd. Versus ARI Ltd. , Bhaw Nagar that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the reality behind the facade of paper arrangement of contract labour system so according to the judgment of the Apex Court the Tribunal can examine the genuineness or otherwise of the contract labour . I find no force in the argument ofthe management .

Itwas further submitted that the management is an instrumentality of the Central Government . They are charged with the duties of discharging their functions in a fair andjust manner. They are expected to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capricatiously . The management has not been acting fairly , impartially and reasonably. It is their duty to act fairly.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 3527 has held that the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contract has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under the genuine contract or whether it is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder. If the contract is not genuine the alleged contract labour should be treated as the employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the concerned establishment . In the instant case it is proven fact that the contractors are mere name givers and job lenders . The workman work under the control and supervision of the management .

Ithas been held in AIR 1953 SC 404 that if a master employs a servant and authorize him to employ a number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency for cash consideration , the employees thus appointed by the servant will be equally with the employer servant of the masters . In the instant case there is no servant to employ a number of persons. The name of the contractor is fake one . The workmen have been retained in the service of the management since 1995/96 . 2 workmen have been working continuously since 1995/96 and they have become an asset to the management .

Ithas been held in 1997 AIR SCW Page 430 that the industrial adjudicator should decide whether there is valid contract or it is a mere ruse /camouflage and if it is found that the contractor is only a name lender the management should be directed to regularize the workmen.

In JT 2003 ( 1 ) SC 465 -the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that industrial adjudication is appropriate remedy

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii )] forthe alleged contract workers . In (2000) I SCC 126--the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there are multiple pragmatic approach/ factors which should be considered in deciding employer and employee relationship. According to the criteria there should be control and integration . The management has doubtless control over the alleged contractor's men as they work in the establishment of the management . They are integrated to the service of the management. There are no terms and conditions of the contract so there is master and servant relationship . The creation of contract labour is only sham and camouflage and the employer cannot be relieved of his liabilities . According to this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at least 23 workmen are the employees of the management . There is employer and employee relationship .

In JT 1999 ( 2 ) SC 435-the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ifthe work is of perennial nature or ofsufficient duration, contract workers shall be considered to be the direct employees of the management and they are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of the management. The work in the instant case , no doubt, is of perennial nature as the workmen have been continuously working since 1993. It is for sufficient duration . So the alleged contractor's men will become the servant of the management . The management has some vested interest i.e. why the management is continuing the workmen since 1993 and in order to veil this reality the management is giving the name of several contractors every year . The management is doing violent injustice to the workmen . They have been deprived of the facilities and emoluments of regular employees since 1993 .

The intermediary has been introduced in order to deprive the workmen of their rights. The work is not of seasonal nature . Such workmen should not be deprived of their legitimate right .

It was submitted from the side of the management thatthe workmen are the contractor's men and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to regularize the workmen. Only the Central Government can abolish the contract labour and direct for regularization of the contractor's men . There is no merit in the argument ofthe management . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Catena of cases has decided that it the duty of industrial adjudicator to examine and give findings whether contract labour a sham and a mere camouflage to evade the responsibility of the management . It is admitted case that 23 workmen have been working continuously since 1993 .

InPollock Law of Torts a servant and an independent contractor has been defined as under :-

The distinction between a servant and an independent contractor has been the subject matter of a large volume of case - law from which the text -book writers on torts have attempted to lay down some general tests .

17.39

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3(ii ) ]

For example, in Pollock's Law ofForts , (Pages 62& 63 of Pollock on Torts , 15th Edn.) the distinction has thus been brought out:

towhen labour legislation casts welfare obligations on the real employer, based on Articles 38, 39, 42, 43 and 43 -A of the Constitution. The Court must be astute to avoid the mischief and achieve the purpose of the law and not be misled by the maya of legal appearances

This case law has been affirmed by the Constitution Berich Judgment in Steel Authority, of India. In case the security job chokes off, the workmen would be laid off. Such contract, is prohibited; it is not a contract for a given result.

My attention was drawn to the Constitution Bench Judgment in Scale (2006)4 Scale. It has been held in this case as under :-

"A master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end of his work, but directs or at any moment may direct the means also , or, as it has been put, retains the power of controlling the work, a servant is a person subject to the command ofhis master is to the manner in which he shall do his work. An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result but so that in the actual execution of the work is not under the orderor control of the person for whom he does it, and mayuse his own discretion in things not specified beforehand ... ".

In Salmond's Treatise on the Law of Torts the distinction between a servant and independent contractor has been indicated as under:ー

"A. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic ropublic has to be an satdoswa.by the Constitution and the laws made thontumdor. Our constitutionel scheme enviengas omployment by the... Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in het behalf Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that enequals are not treated equals. Thus, any public , employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme.

"What then, is the test of this distinction between a servant and an independent contractor ? The test is the existence of a right of control over the agent in respect of the itianner - in which his work is to be done. A servant is an agent who works under the supervision and direction of his employer ; an independent contractor is one who is his own master. Aservant is a person engaged to obey his employer's orders from time to time; an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain work, but to exercise his own discretion as to the inode and time of doing it-he is bound by his contract, but not by his employer's orders . "

The management retains the power of controlling the work so the workmen are the employees of the respondent /management.

B. A sovereign government , considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done , is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by a law newly enacted, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member ofa family for hundred days in a year, on paying wages as fixed under that Act . But, a regular process ofrecruitment or appointment has to be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts , at a particular point of time, are tobe filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule".

My attention was drawn to another Constitution Bench Judgment-Steel Authority of India: It has been held as under :

"Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor, he merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workmen. But where a workman is hired in or in connection, with the work of an establishment by a contractor,. either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment, a question mig IOC arise whether the contract is a mere:

The test regarding independent contractor and intermediaries have been laid down in Hussainabhai, Calicut V. the Alath Factory Thezhilali Union Kozhikode [ (AIR 1978 SC 1410 (3 Judges ) ] " The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again . Where a worker or group of workers labours to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is , in fact, the employer . He has economic control over the workers subsistence, skill , and continued employment . If he, for any reason , chokes off, the worker is , virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom the workers have immediate or direct relationship.as contract is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing . employment, we discern the naked truth , though draped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the management , not the immediate contractor . Myriad devices , half- hidden in fold after fold of legal form depending on the degree of concealment needed, the type of industry, the local condifiorts and the like may be resorted 1740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] camouflage as in IHussainabhai Calicut's case (supra) and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation's case (supra) etc.; if the answer is in the affirmative , the workmen will be in fact an employee of the principal employer, but if the answer is in the negative , the workmen will be a contract labourer . "

changed. So the contractor is only a label of a bottle. This label is changed from time to time but the contents of the bottle always remain the same . The contractors have been changed and the workmen have been retained. Such a system is in-human . The contractors are the direct employees of the respondent/ management .

In the instant case the workmen have not been hired in connection with the work of the contractor but they have been hired by the contractor for the work of the respondents . So in the instant case there is contract of service betweenthe principal employer and the workmen . In view of thejudgment the workmen become the employees ofthe management .

Itisadmitted case that the work is still existing at present and it is permanent and perennial nature ofwork. Forperennial nature of work contract labour is prohibited . The workmen in the facts and circumstances of the case have become the direct employees of the management and itwas necessary for the management to comply with the provisions of the Section 25 F of the ID Act . The services of the workmen have been admittedly terminated during conciliation proceedings . The workmen are not the contractor's men but they are direct employee of the management. For valid retrenchment it was necessary for the management to pay them retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice in compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act .

The case for regularisation is not made out in view of constitution bench judgment . 2006 (4) Scale the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the management should consider the feasibility of regularization at least after 10 years . But in the instant case the workmen have not completed 10 years of service , so there is no question of their regularization . However , they have worked for more than 240 days in several years , so they are entitled to reinstatement from the date of their termination .

In JT 2001 ( 7 ) SC 268 it has been held " 121 ( 5 ) on issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of Contract Labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought IOC before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder . If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage , the so- called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned . "

It has been held in this case that whether there is prohibition of contract labour or otherwise the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question and in case the contract appears ruse and camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations the so called contract labour will have to be treated as the employee of the principal employer and he shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract workers .

However the workmen have worked for 240 days in 3 to 4 years and they have been working under the control and supervision of the management . Their attendances were taken by the JE . Payment was made to them by JE. In view of the absolute supervision and control of the management the workmen have become direct employees ofthe management . They deserve reinstatement for lack of compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act . In the facts and circumstances of the case the workmen are not entitled to get any back wages .

Thereference is replied thus :-

"According to well reorganization definition of contract it is an agreement for a given result . The result should be visible. Contract labourers can be engaged for the work of contractor only and not for the work of any establishment. In the present case the work is of the establishment and not of the contractor . The term supply oflabour by a contractor is against human dignity . No one can be a supplier of human labour to any establishment . It isthe duty of State to give employment to its citizen and not of the contractors . Contractors cannot supply labour to any establishment .

The action of the Executive Engineer , Parliament WorksDivision III , CPWD , I.P. Estate , New Delhi in not regularizing the services /granting permanent status and not paying equal pay for equal work to E.Clerk S /Sh. , Sushil Kumar working since 8-1-96 , Raman Kanojiya working since 8-1-96 and Akhilesh Kumar working since 1-8-96 is neither legal norjustified . The management is directed to reinstate the workmen from the date of their termination within two months from the date of publication of the award .

Award isgiven accordingly.

In view of the above discussion it becomes quite obvious that the contractors workmen in the instant case have been retained all along and contractors have becen Date: 22-02-2007

R. N. RAJ , Presiding Officer [भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

1741

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी , 2007

10-12-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management ofM/ s .STC Movers Pvt . Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri Hridayanand Mishra, Driver, w.e.f. 7-10-2002 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman Shri Hridayanand Mishira is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 867.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 क़ा 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स एस.टी.सी. मूवर्स ( प्रा. ) लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, सं. 1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2007 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-39011 /9/2003- आई . आर. ( बी -11 ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th February,2007

S.O. 867. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s . STC Movers(P) Ltd. , and their workmen, which was received bythe Central Government on 26-02-2007 .

[No. L-39011 /9/2003 - IR (B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT:

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT 73 OF2003

Parties:

Employers in relation to the Management of

M/ s. STC Movers (P) Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr. RajeshHukeri , Adv.

For the Workman : Mr. A.M. Koyande, Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 13th day ofFebruary,2007

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d) ofsub-section 1 of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L -39011/9/2003 - IR (B - II ) dated

2. Shri Hridayanand Mishra (hereinafter referred to as workman) filed the Statement ofclaim dt . 11-3-2004 and submitted that he had joined the services in the year 1980 as Cleaner with the Employer M/s . STC Movers (hereinafter referred to as the Employer) andhe was made permanent in the year 1984. He was promoted as Driver in the year 1987 and since then, he has been very sincere and honest in his service . On the fateful day, i.e. 19-5-2002, he was driving Trailer No. MH-01-857 from 3/4 Victoria, Docks to 2 Indira Docks for loading 40 ' of Container. The container was loaded at 2 Indira Docks on his trailer at about 11.30 a.m and he was passing through his usual route, from 2 Indira Docks to 3 Indira Docks to 4 Indiara Docks to- 5 Indira Docks leading to 3 Victoria Docks . He had hardly passed4 IndiraDocks when he saw that Trailor No. MH-257-driven byMr. Bondave, driver of the employer was coming from the other side after unloading the container, The aforesaid driver Mr. Bondave entered his trailer into No.Eutry Zone near 6 Indira Docks and when he realized his mistake , he all of a sudden took turn and apparently dashed the loaded container of the workman which was being driven to the left side at a limited speed prescribed by the Dock area. Theaccident in fact, occurred on account oftotal negligence ofMr. Bondave and he , the workman was not at fault . He was in perfect state of mind, He was not drunk . The Police report was lodged showing Mr. Bondave at fault. The accident which occurred in the year. 1994 was due to mechanical fault of the vehicle and not on account of the fault of the workman . The Employer issued a show cause memodt. 21-5-2002 which was duly repliedby the workman but on the plea that it was not satisfactory, the workman was issued a charge sheet and domestic enquiry was constituted. TheEmployer arrayed the workman as well as Mr. Bondave as witnesses against each other before the EnquiryOfficer . The enquiry commenced on 03-6-2002 and concluded on 23-9-2002., The Enquiry Officer submitted its report dt . 11-10-2002 wherein he , ( workman ) and Mr.Bondave were held guilty. The workman, received the show cause notice from the Employerdt . 19-10-2002 . He submitted his reply dt . 22-10-2002 but his replý was not considered and he was illegally dismissed from service. It is alleged that the enquiry is not just and fair and not in consonance with principles of natural justice: The finding ofthe Enquiry Officer is perverse. The Industrial dispute was raised by the Union and since the conciliation failed before the concerned Conciliation Officer, the Government referred the matter to this Tribunal on receipt of the failure report.

816G1/07-20 1742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3,1929 [ PART II-SEC . 3 (11) ]

( iii) Does the Company prove that the charges against the workman mentioned in the charge sheetdt . 3-6-2002 are proved and correct.

(iv) Does the workman prove that the punishment inflicted on him is disproportionate ?

(v) Does the workman prove that he is unemployed and entitled for back wages ?

5. The workman filed his own affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. He reiterated his claim that he was not atfault.He has been cross - examined by the learned counsel for the Employer wherein he has admitted that he had participated in the enquiry and defended it through his defence representative Mr. A.G. Sankar. He admitted his signatures on the enquiry proceedings running from Page 1 to 49.He received the copy of the enquiry report. He did not make any complaint that the enquiry proceedings were not proper . The police complaint was lodged for the accident in question. The judgement has been passed by the magisterial Court . He does not have the copy of the judgement . He does not know the case number of the magisterial Court . The Employer had offered a cheque for certain amount for settling down the matter during the conciliation proceedings but he refused . He is aged about 40-45 years and not beyond that . He does not have any certificate or proof. He is an illiterate person . He became physically handicapped in the year 1994. He did not apply for any job anywhere after his termination . His relatives and sons take care of him . He has two sons .

6. The Employer filed the affidavit of Shri Sheregar who is the Director of the Company . He has been cross- examinedby the learned counsel for the workman . His entire testimony is based on record . Hence , he has no personal knowledge of the accidentbeing the Director of the Company.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record .

8. ISSUE NO . ( i ) , ( ii) and (lii ) : The workman was charge sheeted for the following charges :

(a) Willful insubordination or disobedience , whether or not in combination with another, of and lawful and reasonable order of superior .

3. The Employer filed the written statement dt. 27-8-2004 and submitted that the workman has been terminated in accordance with law after holding a just and proper enquiry. In fact , the accident took place on account of negligence of both the Drivers, i.s. the workman and Mr. Bondave who were driving the trailer owned by the Employer on the fateful day. The Employer took the action against both the Drivers and both of them have been dismissed from service . The enquiry was just and fair . It wasduly defended by the workman along with his defence representative. Each and every opportunity was given to him and all the principles of natural justice had been followed. There was no ill motive on the part of the Employer to dismiss the workman . In fact , the Employer before the concerned Asstt. Labour Commissioner vide letter dt. 3-7-2003 offered a cheque for Rs . 1,21,036, equivalent to the dues as if retrenched but the workman declined to receive the same and insisted forjob . Since the accident was server and both the vehicles had been damaged which caused great financial loss to the Employer and also to its work since the vehicles remained under repair for a period of about two months , the management of the Employer acted in a most bona fide manner. The workman had committed a misconduct in the year 1994 also for which he was demoted from driving the heavy vehicles to light vehicle . He was again given the similarjob ofdriving heavy vehicles on his oral request that he will be careful in future . The Employer also submitted that there was a tussle in between the workman and Mr. Bondave for loading trailer. The workman had superseded the vehicles standing in queue waiting to be loaded and deliberately Breaking the vehicle queue and parked his trailer in front for loading the goods . The tussle for loading on priority basiswas between the workman and Shri Bondave , another driver oftrailer No. MH 04 E 257. Mr. Bondave loaded his container at Terminal 2 ID and was off loaded at terminal 3-4 U-D while returning to 2 ID . The workman was travelling between terminal 5 ID and 4 ID dashed against the rear side ofthe traller No. MH 04 E257 . The speed limit prescribed byBombay Port Trust is 20 kms per hour and the workman was driving beyond the speed limit . The workman was negligent in driving his vehicle , as he failed to take any precaution to avoid the collision with the vehicle coming from opposite direction , which he had noticed. In the accident, both the drivers have been injured and one cleaner Mr. Laxmikanth Pandey was seriously injured ; both the vehicles were also greatly damaged.

(b) Habitual breach of any standing order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rules made thereunder .

4. The workman filed his rejoinder dt. 9-9-2004 and reiterated his claim . On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

(c) Collection without the permission of the Manager of any money within the premises of the establishment except sanctioned by any law for the time being in force.

(i) Does the Company prove that the enquiry constituted against the workman is fair and proper?

(d) Drunkness riotous , disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment .

(ii) Does the workman prove that the finding of the enquiry is perverse, biased or vitiated .

1743 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/43, 1929

[ भाग 11- बैंड 3( 11) ]

(e) Habitual neglect of work or gross or habitual negligence.

(f) Wilful damage to work in process or to any property of the establishment ."

The facts relating to the aforesaid charges were also mentioned in brief:

grievance against the Enquiry Officer since he did not complain against him at any time. Each and every opportunity was given to him to defend the enquiry . The witnesses were examined and cross - examined by defence representative of the workman . The copy of the enquiry reportwas supplied to the workman . The copy ofthe show cause noties was supplied to him and he filed the replies at all times. The punishment order was passed in soverdance with law after following the principles ofnatural justice.

10. The perusal of the enquiry report goes to show that it is based on evidenes on record. The finding cannot be said to be perverse at all. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is just when he found both drivers of both the vehicles guilty for negligence. The factum of soeldent is not disputed in this cass . The fastum of Injuries to the persons consisting of the workman, his cleaner and the driver of the other vehicle is not disputed. The damage to both the vehieles la not disputed . It is also not disputed that both the vehicles remained under repair for about 1% to 2 months and caused sufficient loss to the employer for repair.

"That on 19-8-2002 , you were working on vehiele No. MH 04 F/857 as " DRIVER " along with the Cleaner Shri Laxmikanth Pandey. During the time ofyourduty at around 11.30 a.m./p.m . you were driving the sald vehicle with a40' container and proseeding the same towards VD for unloading the same. AT4 ID, you came in such a reckless speed that you could not control the vehicle , with the result , you collided with our another vehicle bearing No. MH 04 E257. This costheavy damage to both the vehicles due towhich the company suffered heavy financial lens for repairing both the vehicles . The Company also suffered heavy loss of business . The Management got the information that you were driving the vehicle fully drunk (consuming alochol).

In the past also , you have indulged in similar serious misconducts for which management served upon you several show cause and subsequent warning to that effect. The warnings had no effect on you and it seems you have turned your sar draft with the result, the smooth functioning of the establishment in spoiled and you have also set bad example to ether Co-workers.

The Management had also warned you orallymany times not to consume slschol during duty hours but you disregarded the instructions , when questioned about such a behaviour you not only behave in a disorderly and rude manner with your immediate superior, on the contrary, you created disorderly and used most abusive and threatening language. When, asked to produes yourself for Medical examination you became furious and went away by using the threatening and abusive language .

The above set on your part being of the grave and serious miscondust under the Induarial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946 applicable to you. You are liable for severe disciplinary setion ."

11. The only contention of the workman is that Mr. Bondave, the driver of the other vehicle entered Into 'No Entry Zone' and caused accident . I feel that this by Itself is not sufficient to absolve the workman from his responsibility ofdriving the vehicle carefully and with due diligence . The workman admitted that he noticed the vehicle driven by Mr. Bondave but there is nothing on record to show that what actions were done by him to avert the accident. The story of tussle is also brought on record before the Enquiry Officer through the evidence of Mr. T.R. Shukla, Supervisor who was present at the time of the quarrel between the workman and Mr. Bondave regarding as towhose trailer should be loaded first. The contention of the workman that the evidence ofMr. Shukla is under pressure cannot be believed. It is true that the employer has not brought on record, on evidence to show that the workman was drunk but that also did not mean that the seeldent was not on account ofjoint negligence of the workman and Mr. Bendave. I find that the findings of the EnquiryOffeer that the serident took place on account of negligence ofboth the drivers is just and proper and is based on evidence on record . I do not find any fact to show any perversity in it or any reason either for the employer or for the Enquiry Officer to hold the workman guilty with a view to victimize him . Had Mr. Bondave been absolved, there would have been some force in the contention of the workman . Since both the drivers have been punished in accordance with law, the ples of the workman is not sustainable that he is a victim of the employer. Hence , I conclude that enquiry is just and fair and in consonance with principles of natural justice. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse. The charge ofgrave negligence on the part of the workman is proved onrecord.

9. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings and fool It is just and proper. The workman tried to say that the enquiry is notjust er fair and in consortance with principles of natural Justice but did not lead any evidence worth the name to substantiate these pleas. Nothing is available on record to infer that there is any violation of principles of naturai justice. The werkman. had defended the enquiry with his defence representative against whom he does not have any grievance . The workman does not have any 1744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Dispute between the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-02-2007.

[No. L- 12012/54/2001 - IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI 12. ISSUE NO. ( iv ) : The punishment imposed upon the driver cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge of grave negligence . The action of the employer is not malafide . It is a case in which the employer lost his confidenceupon the driver , i.e. the workman and terminated him. The Employer cannot be compelled to engage the workman again for driving the heavy vehicles and thereby give chance ofjeopardizing the life and property . The past conduct ofthe workman is also relevant in this case and it cannot be brushed aside . I feel that the punishment is just and proper and not disproportionate to the charge.

R.N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 47/2001

PRESENT :

Smt . Poonam Das

IstParty

Ms. Kitu Bajaj

2nd Party

IN THE MATTER OF :

8. ISSUE NO . ( v) : In view of the findings given above, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The conduct ofthe workman in contesting the matter does not appear to be of a prudent man . The conduct of the workman is all through bonafide . The Employer had offered substantial amount of Rs . 1,21,036 during conciliation proceedings before the concerned Conciliation Officer but the workman refused. The workman does not appear to be interested in anyjob in view of his admission made in cross examination since he did not even attempt for getting any job after his dismissal as he is looked after by his sons and relatives.

Shri Dan Singh , C/ o General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) Opposite Labour Office , Giri Nagar , Kalkaji , New Delhi - 110019 .

Versus

The Branch Manager ,

14. In view of the above , the action of the management in terminating the workman is justified and the workman is not entitled to any reinstatement or back wages . He is , however , entitled to get the amount from the employer amounting to sum of Rs . 1,21,036 which was voluntarily offered by the employer to the workman during the conciliation proceedings , ifhe feels satisfied now with histermination .

Oriental Bank of Commerce , Harsha Bhawan , E - Block, Cannaught Place .

New Delhi .

AnAward is passed accordingly . Justice GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 27 फरवरी, 2007

का.आ. 868 .

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/54/ 2001 - IR ( B - II ) Central Government dt . 10-7-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरिएण्टल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2001) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-2-2007 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the Branch Manager , Oriental Bank of Commerce , Harsha Bhavan , E- Block , Connaught Place, New Delhi in verbally stopping from duty w.e.f. 17-05-2000 to Shri Dan singh , Sweeper is justified, valid and legal ? If not , what relief and benefit he is entitled to ? "

[सं. एल-12012/54/2001- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi . the 27th February , 2007

The Union had filed claim statement in the claim statement . It has been stated that the workman Sh . Dan Singh was employed by the management as Sweeper w.e.f 2-7-1995 and last wages drawn @ Rs . 75 per day . 、

Thatthe work performance of the workman was quite satisfactory and unblemished service record .

S.O. 868. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2001 ) ofthe Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

That during the service period the workman demanded the legal facilities from the management like, 1745 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3,1929

That since the date of illegal termination of the workman, the workman is unemployed and after his best efforts the workman could not get the job anywhere and stillunemployed.

appointment letter, identity card, leave book, wages slip, overtime, bouns etc.,and also demanded the mininum wages as per the notification of the Delhi Administration , Delhi. But the same was not provided to the workman . The said demand was demanded by the workman from the management on one pretext or the other one.

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it has been stated that the allegeddispute is not an " Industrial Dispute" under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim is therefore not sustainable in law.

That the workman again demanded the said facilities from the management on 17-5-2000 , on the demand of the workman the management got annoyed with the workman and decided to get rid of him in any circumstances . The management also pressurising the workman to submit his resignation . When the workman refused to submit the resignation then management without any cause or reason terminated the services of the workman on the same day i.e. 17-5-2000. The management also withheld the wages of the workman for the period of 1-4-2000 to 16-4-2000.

That at the time of termination of the workman the management had not paid any terminal benefits to the workman: The said termination ofthe workman is illegal , unjustified and inoperative and the same is devoid.

That there exists a procedure of recruitment/ appointmentby the Nationalized Banks . After the vacancies are ascertained, all the vacancies in the subordinate cadre , irrespective of the nature and duration of vacancy are notified and are filled through the employment exchange alone. The candidates within the zone ofthe consideration are called from the Employment Exchange appointments are made as per the rules and regulations of the bank, by the CompetentAuthority. The claimant was never appointed by the respondent, As the claimant was never appointed by the respondent, no question arose of stopping him or termination of his services , as alleged. The reference is therefore is liableto be answered against the claimant .

That prior to terminating the services ofthe workman the management had not issued any type of show cause noticeand/or chargesheet to the workman nor any enquiry was being held by the management against the workman . The management illegally and inoperatively terminated the services of the workman on 17-5-2000..

TheOriental Bank of Commerce has a recognized union , under the name ofthe Oriental Bank of Commerce Employees' Union which agitates the cause of the employees of the respondent. Thus the General Majdoor Trade Union has no locus standi to espouse the cause of the claimant.

That the act of the management to terminate the services of the workman was clear violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 .

Thatthe said termination ofthe workman's services are illegal , bad in law, malafide and being the glaring act of victimisation.

That the claimant was engaged as a camal worker as and when any unexpected exigency arose. He was engaged on51 instances for half an hour for cleaning the Barik's: premises andwas duly paid on those days . As the claimant was not a regular employee nor has he completed 240 days- continuousdays in a calendar year in the respondent Bank, the claimant has no right to the reliefclaimed . The reference istherefore liable to be answered against the Claimant and in favour of the management.

That after the illegal termination ofthe workman , the workman approached the management to reinstate the services ofthe workman but all the approach ofthe workman are in vain as the management has rejected the demand of theworkman.

The reference is liable to be answered against the claimant as it has been held in catena ofjudgements by the Apex Court that a person cannot claim the right to employment unless he has been appointed by the Competent Authority against a vacant post . As the applicant was never appointed by the Competent Authority after following the procedure laid down by the Bank, his claim is not sustainable in law.

That the workman served the demand notices upon them on 22-5-2000 to the management per registered post as well as U.P.C. to the management but the vindicative management neither replied nor reinstated the service of the workman with full back wages with continuity of services with all accruing benefits .

The claimant was never appointed against a regular post . The claim is therefore nottenable in law.

The reference itself is bad for misjoinder of and non -joinder of necessary parties.

That the workman filed the dispute before the ConciliationOfficer regarding the illegal termination ofthe workman but the conciliation proceedings were failed and hence the conciliation officer has submitted the failure report to the appropriate government and hence the said matter was referred to this hon'ble court for adjudication and answer the reference accordingly.

The claimant was never engaged after 13-5-2000. Therefore the claim itself vitiated and the reference is liable tobe answered in favour of the management.

1746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( 1) ]

compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice . The management also withheld the wages of the workman for the period of 1-4-2000 to 16-4-2000 . There is no cessation of service in the eye of law as he has not been paid retrenchmant compensation . The management has acted in violation of the provisions of ID Act . Termination of the workman'sservice is illegal , bad in law, mala fide and an act ofvictimization.

The claimant was never appointed by the respondents. The claimant was engaged as a casual worker, for half an hour for cleaning the Bank's premises as and when any unexpected exigency arose . During the period 11-4-1995 to 12-5-2000 , he was engaged only on 51 instances as shown in Annexure attached for half an hour for cleaning the Bank's premises and was paid the contracted amount on those days . He was never engaged after 12-5-2000 . As the claimant was not appointed in the Bank, no question arose of payment of any wages to him .

The workman approached several times for his reinstatement but he was refused.

The claimant was engaged as casual worker on 51 instances , for half hour , for cleaning the Bank's premises and paid on those days . As the claimant was not a regular employee nor has he completed 240 continuous days in a calendar year in the respondent Bank , the claimant has no question arose of assessing his work performance or keeping his service record .

It was submitted from the side of the management that onus for proving that the workman has worked for 240 days lies on him . The workman has failed to prove that he has worked for 240 days in any of the years of his employment . The workman has filed 51 photocopies of vouchers which relate to 95 , 98 , 99 and 2000. The management has also filed the particulars of the dates on which the workman has worked . According to the certificate issued by the bank the workman has worked for 11 days in 1995 , 2 days in 1998 , 27 days in 1999 and 11 days in2000.

The case ofthe management is that the workman has worked only on 51 occasions in 95 , 98 , 99 and 2000 .

As the claimant was not a regular employee nor has he completed 240 days in a calendar year in the respondent Bank, the claimant has not legal right to duty, in the respondent Bank. No demand , as alleged was ever raised by the claimant . Even otherwise the alleged demands on the respondents are not justified, legal and valid and therefore no question arises of the respondents complying with the same.

As the claimant was never in the service of the respondents , no question arose of his making any demand arising of the alleged service . As the claimant was never appointed by the respondent Bank , no occasion ever arose ofthe respondent calling upon the clainiant to submit his resignation, or terminating his services . In absence of any workdone bythe claimant for the alleged period 1-4-2000 to 16-4-2000 , except on 11-4-2000 for half an hour for which he was duly paid, he is not entitled to payment of any wages therefor.

MWI has categorically submitted that he checked the attendance register and he found that the workman has worked on 51 occasions . I have perused the vouchers filed by the workman . These photocopies also relate to 95, 98 , 99 and 2000 and the number of vouchers is the same as has beenmentioned by the management in the certificate issued by the bank . The workman has not filed any other document to show that he has worked regularly on more occasions than stated by the respondents themselves . The vouchers relate to the period as has been given by the respondents. MW1 has stated on oath that he checked the attendance register from 95 to 2000 and he found the workman working on only 51 occasions . It was the duty of the workman to prove by cogent documentary evidence that he has performed 240 days work in any of the years of his engagement .

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

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

It becomes quite obvious from perusal of the vouchers that the workman has worked on 11 days in the year 95 and he has been made payment through vouchers accordingly . He has worked on 2 occasions on 2 days in 98 andhe has been made payment through vouchers . He has furtherworked for 27 days in the year 99 and payment has been made to him through vouchers . IHe has worked for 11 days in the year 2000 and he has been paid through voucher. All the photocopies of the vouchers filed by the workman establish the fact that he has worked for 11 days in 95 , 2 days in 98 , 27 days in 99 and 11 days in 2000 , So the workman has failed miserably to prove that he has worked continuously for 240 days . There is nothing on the record except the affidavit of the workman in which he has averred that he has worked continuously for 240 days . Assertions It was submitted from the side of the workman that hewas engaged by the respondents w.e.f. 2-7-1995 and his last drawn wages was Rs . 75 per day . His work was satisfactory and his record was unblemished. The management was annoyed when the workman demanded appointment letter , 1 /Card , Leave Book , Wage Slip , OT, Bonus etc. He was removed by the management illegally on 17-5-2000 without payment of any retrenchment 1747

भारत का प्राणपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007 /चैत्र 3, 1929-

[ भाग 11-चखंड 3 ( 11) ]

his engagwnent was for 15-20 minutes on the dates of is engagement prior to the opening of the bank.

of affidavit cannot be taken to be conclusive proof ofthe working days. The workman was duty bound to prove by cogent documentary evidence that he has worked for 240 days.

He has also admitted that he was given engagement on2-7-1995when Shri Raji Lal expired . The workmanwas. engaged on the vacancy caused by the demise ofShri Raji Lal . The bank has proved that another sweeper Shri Pappu was posted at the place of Raji Lal . The post ofRaji Lal was filledup by the transfer of another sweeper Shri Pappu, so It cannot be said that the workman worked at the place of shri Raji Lal .

The workman has further admitted in his cross examination that the Manager ofthe Bank engaged him as and when required. This proves that the workman was engaged occasionally on the basis of requirement.

The workman has admitted in his cross examination that he was not aware of the dates when he was engaged by the bank. He has further admitted that he was engaged for 15-20 minutes before the start ofthe bank hours ofthe bank. He has also admitted that he was paid the contracted amount on the date he was engaged. From his cross examination it becomes apparent that he was engaged on certain dates and payment was made to him as per contract amount . He was engaged for 15-20 minutes prior to the opening of the bank. It Indicates that he worked only for 15-20 minutes for sweeping and cleaning of the premises of the bank and before start of the bank, so it cannotbe said that he worked continuously for 240 days as awhole time performer.

My sttention was drawn to (2005 ) IVAD (8C)39. In this case the workman has produced vouchers of monthly wages and the bank has not produced any material evidence to show under what scheme the workman was employed. This case law is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case,

From perusal ofthe record it transpires that the workman has worked on 31 dates in all the years of his engagement and he has been paid contracted amount on the dates on which he worked . He has not proved that he has worked for 240 days in any of the years of his employment . There is no violation of Section 25 F ofthe ID Act. He is not entitled to retrenchment compensation as he has not worked continuosly for 240 days . He does not deserve any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus:

under: The workman has stated in his cross examination as

The action ofthe Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Harsha Bhavan , E-Block, Connaught Place , New Delhi in verbally stopping from duty we.f. 17-5-2000 to Shri Dan Singh , Sweeper isjustified, valid and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. :

Award is given accrodingly.

Date:22-2-2007

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007 "I am not aware of the dates when I was engagedby the Bank. I know that there was a regular post in the bank when I was appointed on the said work. I was never given any appointment letter by the bank. I never asked for appointment letter in writing. i am not the member ofthe recognized union ofthe bank. I do not know whether there is any recruitment procedure in the bank without which no recruitment can take place. I was told that one person Shri Raji Lal expired on 2-7-1995 and I was engaged on the said date for the work of sweeping . It is correct that Iwas engaged for 15-20 minutes before the start of the working hours of the bank. Mr R.P. Sharma one of the officer of the bank informed me on 2-7-1995 about the death of Raji Lal: It is wrong to suggest that Shri Raji Lal was not expired on 2-7-1995 : The Manager of thebank used to engage me as and when required in the bank. Shri Kamal Singh Jain used to engage me in the bank . It is correct that I was paid the contracted amount on the date I was engaged."

का.आ. 869. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा, 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. 2 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 188/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/ 104/2000 - आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी .:

New Delhi , the 28th February,2007 It is apprent from his admission that he was not aware of the dates when he was engaged by the bank. He has further admitted that he did not have any record of the dates he worked with the bank . This proves that the workman was engaged on dates only. The workman has further admitted that he worked for 15-20 minutes before the start ofthe working hours ofthe bank. This proves that

$.O. 869. In pursuance of Section, 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central 1748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

FCI in terminating the services of Shri Hari Kishan S/ o Girja Singh w.e.f. 20th Sep. , 1998 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 188/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. 11. Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ICI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007.

[No. L-22012/ 104/2000- IR(C- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

Case I.D. No. 188/2005

Registered on 2-8-2005

Date of Decision 19-1-2007

Hari Kishan ,

S/ o Shri Girja Singh , Village Badrolla, Tehsil Ballabgarh , District Faridabad ( Haryana) ,

Faridabad

Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager ,

FCI , Gurgaon

Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Mr. Jagat Singh , AR

On getting the notice from the Tribunal, the parties appeared through their Counsel and representatives . The workman filed his statement of claim and the Management their reply. The Management placed on record photo copies ofa number of documents including that of the agreement between the management and Messrs . Aman Security and Detective (Regd.) , Chandigarh . They also filed the affidavit of their District Manager , R.A. Gupta . In rebuttal the workman has not produced even his own affidavit . As stated earlier right from 30th March , 2006 the workman disassociated with the proceedings . By their pleadings the Management has denied the claim made by the workman that he was engaged by the Management on 1st Jan. , 1998 as a watchman on a salary of Rs . 1050 per month in their godown at Faridabad and that his services were terminated on 29th Sep. , 1998 without following the provisions of law; hence disengagement was bad in law. The Management has denied the basic relationship of employer and employee between the parties . Their claim is that they had not engaged the workman as they were in contrract with Messrs . Aman Security and Detective (Regd.) , Chandigarh and it was the said agency which had deputed the workman to work for the management and the Management had no direct control over the workman as he was not their employee nor he had served the management for more than 240 days as is claimed. The claim of the Management has been supportedby the affidavit of R.A. Gupta. The workman has not taken the option to cross - examine Mr. Gupta , as he stopped appearing in the case .

For the Management Shri Parmod Jain, Advocate .

AWARD

On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workman was engaged by the Management directly and it was they who terminated his services from 29th Sep. , 1998. The workman has not filed even his own affidavit to support his claim . The Tribunal is at loss to accept the claim ofthe workman . Therefore , it is of the opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief and his claim is rejected . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the filebe consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

The workman continues to be absent . Management appears through Counsel . Finding that the workman is not appearing since long , it was directed that a notice be issued to him under Registered Cover and the same was issued under Postal Receipt No. 4304 on 30th October , 2006 . Neither he is present today nor the notice sent under Registered Cover has been received back unserved even when more than one month has expired when the notice was issued. It raises the presumption that the workman has received the notice but he was not present . He is not present even on the last two dates nor for his evidence . The Tribunal is satisfied that the workman is not more interested to prosecute his case .

The Government of India vide their order No. L-22012/104/ 2000 - IR ( C- II ) dated 15th Sep. , 2000 referred the dispute to this Tribunal and desired to know "Whether the action of the Management of

का.आ. 870.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. 2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 190/2005 ) को.

1749 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । :

has received the notice but he was not present . He is not present even on the last two dates nor for his evidence . The Tribunal is Batisfied that the warkman is no more interested to prosecute his case,

[सं. एल-22012/118/2000-आई.आर. (सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमारे गौड़ , डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2007.

The Government of India vide their order No. L-22012/ 118/2000- IR (C- II) dated 204/21st Sep.,2000 referred the dispute to this Tribuned and desired to know "whether the action ofthe Managementof FCI in terminating the services of Shri Gyanander S/o . Shri Dharam Pal w.e.f. 5th May, 1999 is legal and justified ? If not, towhat relief the workanan is entitled to ?"

S.O. 870.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 190/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007.

[No. L-22012/118/2000- IR(C-II)]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- OUM- LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 190/2005

Registered on 2-8-2005

Date ofDecision 19-01-2007

1 Gyanender,

Petitioner

S/o Shri Dharam Pal, Village Bhakri , PO Palli , District Faridabad.

Versus

The District Manager ,

Respondent

FCI ,Gurgaon.

APPEARANCE :

On getting the notice from the Tribunal , the parties appeared through their Counsel and representatives . The workman filed his statement of clalin and the Management their reply. The Management placed on record photočoples of a number of documents including that ofthe agreement betweenthe management and Messrs . Aman Security and Detective (Regd. ), Chandigarh . They also filed the affidavit oftheir District Manager , R.A. Gupta. In rebuttal the workman has not produced even his own affidavit . As stated earlier right from 30th March , 2006 the workman disassociated with the proceedings . By their pleadings the Management has denied the claim made by the workman that he was engaged by the Management in the year 1995 as a watchman on a salary ofRs . 1200 per month in their godown at Faridabad and that his services were terminated on5thMay, 1999 without following the provisions of law; hence disengagement was bad in law . The Management hasdenied the basis relationship ofemployer and employee between the parties . Their claim is that they had not engaged the workman as they were in contract with Messrs .Aman Security and Detective (Regd .) , Chandigarh and it was the said agency which had deputed the workman to work for the management and the Management had no direct control over the workman as he was not their employee nor he had served the management for more than 240 days as is claimed. The claim ofthe Management has been supportedby the affidavit ofR.A. Gupta. The workman has not taken the option to cross - examine Mr. Gupta, as he stopped appearing in the case.

For the Workman

Mr. Jagat Singh, AR

Shri Parmod Jain , Advocate .

For theManagement

AWARD

On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workman was engaged by the Management directly and it was theywho terminated his services from 5th May, 1999. The workman has not filed even his own affidavit to support his claim . The Tribunal is at loss to accept the claim of the workman. Therefore, it is of the opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any reliefand his claim is rejected. Let a copy of this awardbe sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the filebe consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer Theworkman continues to be absent. Management appears through counsel . Finding that the workman is not appearing since long, it was directed that a notice be issued to him under Registered Cover and the same was issued under Postal Receipt No. 4304 on 30th October, 2006. Neither he is present today nor the notice sent under Registered Cover has been received back unserved even when more than one month has expired when the notice was issued. It raises the presumption that the workman

816G1/07-21 1750

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 871. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 189/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -22012/120/2000- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007

S.O. 871. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 189/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Centrai Government on 28-02-2007 .

[No. L-22012/ 120/2000 - IR (C- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer .

Case I.D. No. 189/2005 Registered on 2-8-2005 Date of Decision 19-01-2007

Sunil Dutt So Shri Rohtash Sharma , House No. B- 125/65 , Dabua Colony, Faridabad.

...Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager , FCI , Gurgaon

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] under Postal Receipt No. 4303 on 30th October , 2006.Neither he is present today nor the notice sent under Registered Cover has been received back unserved even when more than one month has expired when the notice was issued. It raises the presumption that the workman has received the notice but he was not present . He is not present even on the last two dates nor for his evidence . The Tribunal is satisfied that the workman is no more interested to prosecute his case.

" The Government of India vide their order No. L -22012/ 120 /2000 - IR ( C-II) dated 20th/21st Sep. , 2000 referred the dispute to this Tribunal and desired to know "whether the action of the Management of FCI in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Dutt S/ o Rohtash Sharma w.e.f. 5th May , 1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

...Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Mr. Jagat Singh , AR For the Management Shri Parmod Jain, Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent. Management appears through Counsel. Finding that the workman is not appearing since long , it was directed that a notice be issued to him under Registered Cover and the same was issued On getting the notice from the Tribunal , the parties appeared through their Counsel and representatives . The workman filed his statement of claim and the Management their reply . The Management placed on record photocopies ofa number ofdocuments including that of the agreement between the management and Messrs Aman Security and Detective ( Regd. ) , Chandigarh . They also filed the affidavit oftheir District Manager, R.A Gupta. In rebuttal the workman hasnot produced even his own affidavit. As stated earlier right from 30th March , 2006 the workman disassociated withthe proceedings . By their pleadings the Management has denied the claim made by the workman that he was engaged by the Management on 1st Jan. , 1998 as a watchman on a salary of Rs . 1200 per month in their godown atFaridabad and that his services were terminated on 5th May, 1999 without following the provisions of law; hence disengagement was bad in law . The Management has denied the basic relationship of employer and employee between the parties . Their claim is that they had not engaged ine workman as they were in contract with Messrs Aman Security and Detective ( Regd . ) , Chandigarh and it was the said agency which had deputed the workman to work for the management and the Management had no direct control over the workman as he was not their employee nor he had servedthe management for more than 240 days as is claimed. The claim of the Management has been supported by the affidavitof R.A. Gupta. The workman has not taken the optionto cross - examine Mr. Gupta , as he stopped appearing in the case .

On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workman was engaged by the Management directly and itwas they who terminated his services from 5th May, 1999. The workman has not fijed even his own affidavit to support his claim . The Tribunal is at loss to accept the claim of the workman . Therefore , it is of the opinion that the workınan is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

reliefandhis claim is rejected. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the filebe consigned to records after due completion.

1751

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2007

का.आ. 872.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्यो 191/2009) को प्रकाशित करती हैं , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/105/2000- आई .आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007 S.O. 872. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government nereby publishes the award (Reference No. 191/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela ion to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-02-2007.

[No. L- 22012/ 105/2000- IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR.COURT-IL, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer.

Case 1.D. No. 191/2005

Registered on2-08-2005

Date ofDecision 19-01-2007

...Petitioner Rohtash S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Village Bakri , PO Pali , District Faridabad (Haryana)

Versus

The DistrictManager, FCI , Gurgaon

...Respondent APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

AWARD The workman continues to be absent , Menagement appears through Counsel , Finding that the workmen is not appearing since long, it was directed thata metine be issued to him under Registered Cover and the same was issued under Postal Receipt No. 3243 on 20th October,2006,Neither he is present today nor the notico sent under Registered Cover has been received book unserved even whop-more than one month has expired when the notice was issued. It raises the presumption that the workman has received the notice but he was not present. He is not present even on the last two dates nor for his evidence . The Tribunal is satisfied that the workman is no more interested to prosecute his case. :

"The Government of India vide their order No. L-22012/105/2000- IR ( C-II) dated 19th Sep., 2000 referred the dispute to this Tribunal and desiredto know "whether the action ofthe Management ofFCI in terminating the services of Shri Roktash S/o Kishan Lal w.e.f. 20th March, 1998 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled tó ?"

On getting the notice from the Tribunal , the parties appeared through their Counsel and representatives . The workman filed his statement of claim and the Management their reply. The workman filed rejoinder whereas the Management placed on recond photo copies of a number ofdocuments including that of the agreement between the management and Mesars Aman Security and Detective (Regd), Chandigarh . They, also filed the affidavit of their District Manager, R.A Gupta. In rebuttal the workman has not produced even his own affidavit. As stated parljer right from 30th March, 2006 the workman disassociated with the proceedings . By their pleadings the Management has deniedthe claim made by the workman that he was engaged by the Management on 10th August, 1996 as a watchman on a salary of Rs . 1200 per month in their godown at Faridabad and that his services were terminated on 19th March, 1998without following the provisions oflaw; hence disengagementwas bad in law. The Management has denied the basic relationship of employer and employee between the parties. Their claim is that they had not engaged the workman as they were in contract with Messrs Aman Security andDetective (Regd), Chandigarh and it was the said agency which had deputed the workman to work for the management and the Management had no direct control over the workman as he was not their employee nor he had served themanagement for more than 240 days as is claimed. The claim ofthe Management has been supported by the affidavit of R.A. Gupta. The workman has not taken the option to cross-examine Mr, Gupta, as he stopped appearing in the case.

Mr. Jagat Singh , AR

For the Management :

On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workman was engaged by the Management directly and it was theywho terminated his services from 19th/20th

Shri Parmod Jain,

Advocate

1752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

: March , 1998. The workman has not filed even his own affidavit to support his claim . The Tribunal is at a loss to accept the claim of the workman . Therefore , it is of the opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief and his claim is rejected. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action- and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 873.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1104/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

सं. एल-22012/76/2000- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007 S.O. 873. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 1104/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007 .

[No. L-22012/76/2000- IR(C-II)]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer.

Case I.D. No. 1104/2005

Registered on 21-09-2005

Date of Decision 19-01-2007

Subhash Chand S/ o Shri Rakhla Ram, VPO Jalmana, District Karnal & Others ... Petitioner

Versus

The District Manager , FCI , Kurukshetra

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

Forthe Workman

: Shri P. S. Rana and Sunil Sood, AR For the Management : Mr. N. K. Zakhmi , Advocate

AWARD

The workman are not present . Management appears through Counsel .

The record of the file shows that the workmen have playedhide and seek with the proceedings in this Tribunal . Right from the day the case was transferred to this Court the workmen did not appear except one of them Subhash Chand appeared on 27th Sep. , 2006 , that too, after a notice under Registered Cover was sent to the workmen. But on the next date he also disappeared . It was in those circumstances that fresh notices was issued to the workmen under Registered Cover vide Postal Receipt No. 3424 dated 20th October , 2006. Despite that nobody is presenttoday, for the workmen . The notice sent has not been received back unserved . The Tribunal has reasons to believe that the workmen have received the notice , but they are not present . From their conduct the Tribunal is satisfied that they are not interested to prosecute in the present case .

The Government of India vide their order No. L-22012/76/2000 - IR ( C - II) dated 15th Sep. , 2000 desired of this Tribunal to say " whether the action of the Management of FCI in not regularizing the services ofthe workman Shri Subhash Chand and 13 others , engaged under contract labour ( Regulation and Evolution Act, 1970 ) in FCI after the notification No. 779 (E) dated 9th Dec. , 1976 came into operation, is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

The notice of the reference was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives and Counsel . The workmen filed the statement of claim running into 8 pages . The Management filed reply in the shape ofWritten Statement and opposed the claim of the workmen . The workmen filed rejoinder and affidavit of one of them Subhash Chand in support of the claim . The Management filed the affidavit of their witness Sudeep Singh. The case was being listed for the evidence of the workman when they stopped appearing in the case. Thus the parties had not produced any evidence nor they have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the parties , so as to prove their respective cases . In this approach the loser are the workmen , as they were required to prove that they were the employees of the Management and the Management failed in its duty to regularize them in service in terms of notification no. 779(E) dated 9th Dec., 1976 .

...Respondent

On record I do not find any evidence to show that the workmen are entitled for regularization in terms of the notification referred to above . The claim made by the 1753 [ भाग II-खंड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Sh. RK. Singh Parmar

: Sh . R. C. Atri

Forthe Management

AWARD

The workman is not present. Management appears through representative:

workmen in the statement of claim , has been fully rebutted by the management through their pleadings and the affidavit of their witness . There is , therefore , no evidence to show that the workmen were engaged by the Management directly and they have the right to be regularized in service . As such the reference is answered against them holding that they are not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

The representative of the workman is present and states no instruction in the case . It is on record that today was the last opportunity for the workman to produce his evidence. He has failed to discharge the liability and has even failed to appear in the case. By virtue ofthe conditional order passed on the last date his evidence is taken to be closed.

The Government of India vide their order, no . L -23012/ 26/97- IR(C- II) dated 22nd July, 1998 referred the following matter for the consideration of this Tribunal:-

का.आ. 874.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यौगिक अधिकरण नं. -2 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 970/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the Management of Bhakra Dam in stepping down the rank/pay of ShriBaklev Singh, from Lineman to Beldar instead of Junior Lineman is justified ? Ifnot, towhat relieftheworkman is entitled and from which date ?" [सं.एल-23012/26/1997- आई.आर. (सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 28th February, 2007

Onthe notice of the reference , the parties appeared through their representative. The workman filed his Claim Petitiori and supported the same with his affidavit andthat of his witness Rajinder Singh. The Management filed the affidavit of Shri Vinod Kumar Dewidi supporting their Written Statement. They also placed on record the photo copies ofsome documents within the full knowledge ofthe workman.

S.O. 874. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 970/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-02-2007.

[No. L-23012/26/ 1997- IR(C-11) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL,

CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer.

Case I.D. No. 970/2005

Registered on 15-09-2005

Date ofDecision 19-02-2007

Baldey Singh S / o Shri Kartar Singh R/ o Village and PO Fatehpur Mehral , Tehsil and District Una, ( H.P. )

...Petitioner

Versus

Inhis Claim Petition the workman has stated that he hadjoinedthe service with the Management as dailywager skilledMazdoor on 17th October, 1973 and he was given made helper on 1st August , 1977. He was further promoted as a junior lineman on 1st Sep. , 1978 and then as lineman on15th Feb. , 1983.Giving the details ofpay scale ofallthe categories ofworkers he stated that on the day he met with an accident, he was drawing salary @ Rs. 1320 as basic salary , which if reduced by 30 % would come to Rs . 935; that after a notice for reduction in pay and designation, he was made as helper whereas he should have been down graded to the post of Junior /Assistant Lineman; that as per the letter ofGM, Bhakra Project, only his pay could be reduced to the extent of 30% whereas the Management reduced his allowances also besides the basic pay. Moreover the co- workers were allowed the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1st Jan. , 1986 whereas he was given the grade from the year 1994. In addition he was transferredto CivilWorks Circle and was put on the job ofa caretaker of theoffice furniture. The management thereby changed his service conditions and violated the provisions of Section 33 sub- section 3 of the I.D. Act, hereinafter to be referred as Act . The Management thus made him to do the Civil

.....Respondent

The Chief Engineer, Bhakradam , Nangal Township , DistrictRopar.

1754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929

works whereas he had all along performed the job of electricals . Therefore , the action of the Management was illegal , unjustified and unconstitutional .

The Management admitted the first five averments of the Claim Petition . However they raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the reference saying that the reference is not maintainable as there does not exist any dispute between the parties nor the same was exposed by the Trade Union . It is also stated that the claim isbad for latches .

Facing the other averments , it is stated by the Management that as a result of accident the workman lost hisleft hand and , therefore , was declared disable . It was in those circumstances that he was served upon with the notice. The workman accepted the proposed change in his status and gave his willingness in response to the notice . In the circumstances he was offered the post of a helper. That the workman had become disabled to perform his duties as a Lineman ; hence he was given the job of a helper . TheManagement helped the workman by retaining him in service . Regarding the payment of wages it is stated by them that as a result of reduction of basic pay, his allowances got reduced automatically . Denying the other averments , made in the Claim Petition , it is stated by the Management, that keeping in view the health of the workman , his services are being utilized and the claimed relief is not available to them . The reduction in his status and pay scale was in accordance with the rules governing the workman.

Asstated earlier the workman has not produced any evidence in support of his claim . So much so he has not come forward to stand to the cross- examination of the Management and the averments made by him have been denied by the management except those pertaining to his having been appointed and given promotion, the factum of reduction in salary and status . The Management has placed on record the notice , given to the workman and the order passed copies of which were also sent to the Labour Authorities ,besides the General Secretary of Karamchari Sangh , Nangal . There is on record the application of the workman which reads that the workman accepted the change in his designation , which was duly attested by the SDO and the Executive Engineer in the year 1993. In view ofthewillingness given by the workman it could not lie in his mouth to challenge the reduction in the status and pay ordered by the Management especially in view of disability of the workman in the accident. The workman has failed to produce any evidence to show that the Management could not have done the reduction to that extent or that they had not done so in the similar cases . The order against the workman was therefore , mala fide bad in law . Even otherwise when the workman had suffered disability to the extent of 30% how could he except to perform the duties like an able person and the reduction in his pay scale and status was , therefore was justified . On record I do not find any evidence

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] to show that the action of the Management was unjustified, unfair and mala fide . His claim that his cadre could not be changed is also not justified. Without one arm he could not performed the duty of the Assistant Lineman and thus the Management was considerate to shift him to other section. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him holding that the order of the Management is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 875.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ईक्यून ब्रीडिंग स्टड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण नं. -2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-42012/ 270/ 2001- आई आर ( डी यू) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February , 2007

S.O. 875. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 35/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equin Breeding Stud and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007 .

[No. L-42012/270/2001 - IR( DU )] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer . Case No. 1. D./35/2004

Date of Institution 30-8-2004 Date of Decision 28-04-2005

Title : Rajesh Kumar S/ o Sh . Prasada , Resident of H.No. 341 , New Rishin Nagar , Near Disposal Hissar. V/s.

Commandant , Equin Breeding Stud , Hissar 1755 [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3 , 1929

AWARD

Memo for the Workman

M/s Dipali Puri, Advocate for the Management.

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.-2, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1169/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती हैं , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को | 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/147/1992- आई आर (डीयू) ] एन. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. 42012/270/2001 - IR (DU) dated 23rd of August 2004 referred the following dispute for the adjudication by this Tribunal:

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007 "Whether the action of the Management of Equin Breeding Stud, in terminating the services of Sh . Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 1st of August 1999 is just and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

S.O. 876. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Contral Government hereby publishes the award (ReferenceNo. 1169/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetwoon the employers in relation to the management of Central Institute for Research on Buffalows and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-02-2007.

[No. L-42012/ 147/ 1992 - IR(DU )] N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT-11, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer. Case I.D. No. 1169/2005 Registered on 26-09-2005

DateofDecision 13-02-2007 The reference was received in this Tribunal on 30th ofAugust 2004. It was entered in the concerned register and notices were issued to the parties to appear and putup their respective claims with regard to the reference. The. Management appeared, in response to the notice, through their Clerk, Sh . Tarsem Lal , on 4th ofNovember, 2004, but the workman remained absent . The Tribunal issued fresh notices to the workman , both by ordinary post and under postal certificate , more than once . Since the notices were not received back by this Tribunal and the address ofthe workman was apparently clear , the Tribunal presumed that the notices must have been served upon the workman, but he is not interested to appear and contest the case . The Tribunal further showed indulgence and sent the notice to the workman even through the President ofhis union , but that also went waste as neither the workman appeared nor the notice was received back . Then, the Tribunal waited forhim for two mare dates without any result: The Tribunal is thus of the opinion that the workman is not interested to prosecute his case .

Hukam Singh S/o. Shri Balbir Singh , Village and PO Bhorpur, Tehsil Nabha , District Patiala,

..Petitioner

Versus

Central Institute for Research on Buffalows , Nabha . Respondent

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Workman : Mr. Sarabjit, AR

For theManagement Mr. RK. Sharma, Advocate

AWARD

On record there is neither any claim petition nor any evidence, brought by the workman, to claim that the termination of his services by the management on 1st of August, was unjust and illegal . Though the management appeared regularly, but they could not be asked to state their part of the case since the workman did not make any claim as he has chosen not to appear in support of his claim , as made out in the reference . In the circumstances the Tribunal is not in a position , to say whether the termination of the services of workman , named in the reference , was unjust and illegal . Since the workman has failed to prove that his termination was unjust and illegal , therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered in these terms . Let a copy of this Award be sent to Governinent of India for necessary action and the file be consigned to record after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2007

The parties are not present . The case was received bythisTribunal for consideration from CGFT- cum -Labour Court- 1 and Registered on 26th Sep. , 2005. On a notice from this Tribunal, Mr. Sarabjit appeared on behalfof the workman but without authority. It is on record that the workman expired during the pendency ofthe proceedings and his L Rwas substituted. The case is being prosecuted bythe LRofthe deceased workman

का.आ. 876.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल इंस्टिट्यूट फॉर रिसर्च ऑन बुपफेलोस के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और 1756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II SEC . 3(ii) ] TheGovernment of India vide their order no . L-42012/ 147/92 / IR ( DU) dated 13th Dec. , 1993 referred the following matter for the consideration of this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Management of Central Institute for Research on Buffalows , Nabha in terminating the services of Shri Hukam Singh S / o Shri Balbir Singh , w.e.f. 17th August , 1990 is legal and justified ? If not . what relief he is entitled to ?"

Dev , proved his affidavit MW - 1 and stated that he relies upon the documents R- 1 to R - 5 . In cross - examination he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the case and has tendered the affidavit on the basis of record of the office. Identifying the signatures of the person on R- 5 he stated that the documents are signed by B. R. Chawla who was incharge of the institute at that time . He could not say whether the working days shown include national holidays and Sundays . He admitted that a memo of understanding was arrived at according to which , the work was provided to the workman as and when available . He denied that Pala Singh and Gurdial were juniors to the workman and stated that the workman was offered job twice but he did notjoin. He denied that no such letter was sent to the workman for appointment . He also denied that the Management had terminated the services of the workman . He denied that an inquiry was held against the workman in his absence .

The claim of the L.Rs of the deceased workman is that the workman had served the Management for three and half years till 17th August, 1990 , when his services were terminated without any notice , charge- sheet , compensation or inquiry and the Management retained his juniors whereas his services were terminated . The workman was getting Rs . 32 , as wages per day; that the workman issued demand notice on 23rd August , 1992 but the Management did not reply. The disengagement of the workman was illegal . unjustified , mala fide and void and against the cannons of the natural justice . The workman remained unemployed right from the day of disengagement till he died on 30th Nov. , 1992 .

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman stating that the workman is not entitled to any relief. According to them the workman had worked for the management from Dec. , 1987 to Nov. , 1988 for 220 days , from June , 1989 to June . 1990 for 186 days and during his engagement he did not work for the Management for 240 days in a calendar year: that since the workman did not come in the category of those who had put in 240 days of service in a calendar year , therefore , he was not regularized in service . Instead the management had prepared the list of daily paid workers on 13th Sep. , 1993 and had circulated the same but the workman did not comply with the conditions; that since the workman was working as a seasonal workman , and not regularly, therefore , he was not entitled for any relief; that the workman had himself left the work and relinquished the job service at his own . The Management had issued notices to him , but he did not respond . They have also taken the plea that the Management is not an Industry.

Exceptthe statements of the witnesses named above there is no record to support the case of the parties . The LR of the workman claimed that the workman had served for more than 240 days , before his disengagement, a fact which is denied by the Management . In the absence of any record it cannotbe said that the workman had actually served the Management for 240 days , before the date of termination of his services . The Management has placed on record statement R- 1 , according to which the workman had served for 26 days in 1987 , 194 days in 1988 , 114 days in 1989 and 102 days in 1990. There is no rebuttal to this statement of the Management . If we calculate the working days the workman had worked for the Management , 12 months before the termination of his services he did not putin 240 days of service in any calendar year even ifthe Sundays and the paid holidays are also included which prefixed or suffixed the working days , he served the Management . There is also on record a memo dated 13th Sep. , 1993 , M - 3 according to which 8 workers including the workman vere given the option to work for the management as and when the work was available . This memorandum was prepared in the presence of ALLC Chandigarh . Since the workman had expired on 30th Nov. , 1992 , so there was no question of his coming for work in terms of the memorandum M -3 . The LR of the deceased workman has , therefore, failedto show that the workman had put in service for 240 days on the day his services were disengaged; and that the Management had violated the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act , before terminating the services of the workman . In my opinion there is , therefore , no evidence to show that it was the management who terminated the services of the workman and the termination was illegal and unjustified. The LR of the deceased workman is , therefore, not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

The LR of the workman , Binder Kaur , filed her affidavit in support of her claim and also appeared as a witness whereas Shri S. M. Dev , appeared as a witness for the management . In her statement Ms. Binder Kaur proved the affidavit filed by her. In cross examination she deposed that her husband had worked for the Management from Ist ofJune , 1987 to 15th of August , 1990 ; that the Management had engaged Pala Singh after terminating the services of her husband ; and that her husband had worked for 240 days in a year and that on the termination of his services , he suffered of tension ; that her husband used to work in the farm and was also looking after the buffalows. Sh . S. M.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer 1757

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2007

terminating the services ofDevi Dutt, Ex- Peon-cum- Frash w.e.f. 17th September , 1991 and not giving the preference to him over other persons for re- employment in the same capacity is just fair and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the workmen concerned is entitled and from what date ?".

का.आ. 877.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रोविडेन्ट फण्ड कमिश्नर ऑर्गेनाईकेसन के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण में. II, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या443/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 115/92- आई आर ( डी यू) ] एन. एस. बौरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 28th February, 2007

The notice of the reférence was given to the parties who appeared through their representatives and later on through their Counsel . The workman filed his claim Petition and the Management reply thereto , The workinan filed the rejoinder and his affidavit . The Management filed the affidavit oftheir witness, K. L. Goyal. They also placectron record photocopies of documents marked as R- 1 to R-5. TheManagement also filed affidavit ofShri A. K. Jain and placed on record photocopies of some more documents.

S.O. 877. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 443/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Provident Fund Commissioner Organisation and their workman , which was received by theCentralGovernment on 28-02-2007.

[No. L-42012/ 115/92- IR(DU)]

N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT:

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

Case L. DaNo . 443/2005

Registered on 19-08-2005 Date ofDecision 13-02-2007

Devi Dutt, S/ o Shri Hari Ram, R/ o Village Uncha Petitioner

Samana, Tehsil, District Karnal.

Versus

The claim ofthe workman is that he hadjoined service with the Management as a Peon on 10th ofDee . , 1990 and he served them continuously upto 17th Sep. , 1991 and thereby he served them for more than 240 days, that he was engaged through Employment Exchange, after interview but the Management dispensed with his services without following the procedure laid down in the Industrial Dispute Act, hereinafter to the referred as "Act" . The management did not give him notice before terminating his services indicating the reasons for hisretrenchment nor he was paid wages and retrenchment compensation . They retained juniors of the workman whereas terminated his services . He named Messrs Ram Dhari , Ram Phal , Manu and Mohinder Singh , junior to the workmen , who were retained.He further claimed that the Management also did not provide him opportunity of re - employment after his disengagement, and thereby violated the provisions of Section 25 - F, G and H of the Act . They rather adopted unfair labour practice in terminating his services . The post against which he was working is still available on which a new person has been appointed. He has further claimed that since,after his disengagement from service , he is still not employed, gainfully. It is his prayer that he may be takenback in service with full back wages alongwith interest at the rate of 15 % p.a.

The Management fijed the Written Statement and The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation , Sub- regional Offices ,Haryana, K. No. 7-8 and 108, Sector- 14,UrbanEstate, Karnal. Respondent

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Sh. Naveen Daryal

For theManagement : Sh. Rajesh Bindal

AWARD

The following reference was received from Government of India Ministry of Labour , Vide their No. L-42012/ 115/92- IR(DU) dated 30th September, 1993:

submitted that since the Management is not an Industry therefore, is not a subject of the Act . Besides , the petition is notmaintainable for non -joinder ofnecessary parties , as the workman has not arrayed the Board ofTrustees as a party respondent in the case . In reply toto the averments made in the Claim Petition it is admitted by the Management that the workman had joined services on 11th of December, 1990, afternoon but denied that he was appointed as a Peon. Their case is that the workman was engaged as a daily rated contingently paid worker but he had not served them for 240 days. The workman had been,engaged off and on and he served the Management for the days as shown in the Annexure R- 2 and his engagement was ist terms of "Whether the action ofthe Management ofProvident Fund Commissioner Organization at Karnal in

816G1 /07-22 1758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

>

the management had requisitioned the candidates for employment on regular post and even they had recommended the name of the workman for the post of Peon at Karnal , on a regular vacancy , but his name was not sponsored ; that the workman had worked only for 181.5 days and if the Sundays and Holidays are included, he had worked for 249.5 days for the period from 10th December, 1990 to 17th September, 1991 however he was made the payment for only 181.5 days . He admitted that the workman was not paid retrenchment compensation nor he was given notice of termination of his services . That Messrs Ramesh . Suresh and Ram Phal were engaged against regular vacancies of Peons on the recommendations ofEmployment Exchange . Those persons were working even before the engagement of the workman ; that they had not prepared the seniority list of Casual Labourers .He further stated that Messrs Suresh and Ramesh were appointed when the names Devi Dutt and Rajkumar were also sponsored . Both of them however did not appear for interview, therefore, their names were not considered . He admitted that the Employment Exchange had shown inability to send the name of Devi Dutt as per M- 16 , but on subsequent occasion they have recommended the name ofthe workman .

Annexure R - 1. Admitting that the workman was appointed out ofthe list provided by the Employment Exchange, it is stated by them that the workman was not given the appointment of a Peon/ Frash . Claiming that the conditions of service of a daily rated peon were quite different it is further stated by them that as the Employment Exchange Karnal did not forward the case of workman as a Peon/ Frash ; therefore , he could not be appointed even if he was otherwise suitable . The further claim of the Management is that the services of the workman were dispensed with on 17th September , 1991 but they denied that the management had violated the provisions of Section -25 - F, G and H , as they had not retained the juniors of the workman . The persons appointed by the management were appointed against different post/ cadres by following different procedures and by different authorities . The Management rather showed indulgence and on the request of the workman , asked the Employment Exchange , Karnal to sponsor the name of the workman, but they did not do so. However they sponsored the name of the workman for different post, but the workman did not appear for the interview , therefore , he was not considered . The services ofthe workman were dispensed with since there was no work available for a daily rated worker . Contesting the claim ofthe workman that he is not gainfully engaged, it is stated by them that the workman has been earning handsomely .

The workman filed his rejoinder and stated that the Management is an Industry as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and SewerageBoard Vs A. Rajappa , reported as 1978 LAB IC 467. The workman reiterated the facts stated in the Claim Petition and stated that the documents marked R- 1 and R-2 , referred to by the Management , are not correct. The workman denied the claim made in the Written Statement by the Management . and stated that he is not gainfully engaged as is claimed by the Management .

The perusal of the file shows that the case of both the parties is that the workman had served them from 10th December , 1990 to 17th September, 1991. There is , however, dispute between them about the capacity in which the workman had served . The workman has claimed that he was engaged as a Peon ; and that he had continuously served the management for more than 240 days , whereas the Management claims that the workman was engaged as a daily rated contingent labourer ; and that he had served for 181.5 days . Their witness Mr. A. K. Jain , in the statement , however admitted that if Sundays and Holidays are included in the period , the workman served for the management then the workman had served the management for 249.5 days . However , he was paid the wages only for 181.5 days. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Civil Appeal No. 300 (NL) of 1982 decided on 28th August, 1985 reported as 1986 LAB.I.C 98 , has laid down as under :----

In his statement before this Tribunal the workman admitted the contents of affidavit W- 1 and stated that he was engaged through employment exchange and was paid wages for the days he served the Management ; that he had marked his presence in the attendance register from December , 1990 to September , 1991 and he has placed on record the photocopies of the attendance sheet M - 1 to M- 10 . That the Management had requisition fresh hands forthe post of Peon after his disengagement ; that since he was working with the Management therefore , his name was not sponsoredby the Employment Exchange.

The witness of the Management, A. K. Jain in his statement proved his affidavit M - 11 and documents , placed on record , M -12 to M - 16 and stated that they had requisitioned the services of a Casual Labour , but there is cutting made in M - 12 by erasing the word Peon; that the workman used to perform the job of Casual nature such as handling the files and supplying the water to the staff; that

"The qualification for relief under S.25F is that he should be a workman employed in an industry and hasbeen in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer . What is continuous service hasbeen defined and explained in S.25F of the Act. In view of Sub - s . (2 ) of S.25 - B the workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service is he has " actually worked under the employer " for particular period. Theexpression" actually worked under the employer " cannot mean those days only when the workman worked with hammer , sickle or pen, but must necessarily comprehend all those days during which he was in the employment of the employer and for which he had been paid wages either under express 1759 भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग II-खंड 3(ii ) ]

or implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute , standing orders etc. Thus Sundays and other paid holidays should be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the total number of days on which the workman could be said to have actually worked, AIR 1981 SC 852, Disting . "

Employment Exchange. The management, however ,wrote tothe employment exchange to sponsor the name of the workman also but that the Employment Exchange didagree saying that his name could not be recommended twice. In that process , the workman lost the right to be considered for regular appointment as Peon . He further lost his employment since those found fit for employmentjoined and he was shown the door back without following the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act. This speaks misfortune ofthe workman. He further suffered bocause, on second occasion his name was recommended by Employment Exchange but he could not be considered for regular appointment since he did not appear for interview. Atthis stage I am only concerned with the action ofthe Management in terminating the services of the workman on17th Sept.,1991 and as is shown above, the management disengaged the workman without following the provisions ofthe lawas laid down in Section 25 -F ofthe Act. Thus the disengagement of the workinan was bad in law.

The position is , therefore , clear that the workman had put in the service of 249.5 days , 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services ,by the Management. The Management has claimed that the workman was engaged as a Casual Labourer and was paid wages out of contingency; that he was not engaged against a regular post of Peon. In order to get the protection under Section 25-F, it is not required that the workman should be engaged against a regular vacancy or is engaged as a daily rated Mazdoor, Casual Worker or even a part timer. What is important is having served the management for 240 days in 12months preceding the date of his disengagement . In the present case the Management has admitted that the workman had served them for 249.5 days preceding 12 months from the date of termination of his services. , Their plea is that the workman was disengaged on the joining of regular appointees . Accordingto them the Employment Exchange had not recommended the name of the workman, therefore, he was not considered for a regular appointment. At this stage the Tribunal is required to examine whether the action of the Management in disengaging the workman on 17th Sep. , 1991 wasjust, fair and legal, which also means whether the protection , the workman earned by having put in 240 days of service to the management , before his disengagement, was provided to him or not. In other words whether the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were followed or not . The Management's witness admitted that before terminating his services the workman was not given any notice nor he was paid wages for the period of notice and retrenchment compensation . Thus the management did not follow the provisions of Section 25F of the Act . The retrenchment of the workman was , therefore, bad in law.

The question now arises as to what relief the workman is entitled to . It has been held that the Management did not follow the provisions of Sectioón 25 - F oftheAct before terminating the services ofthe workman , therefore, his termination was bad in law. It is to be treated that there was no order of disengagement. About the benefits he is entitled to, I hold that he is to be treated in service as if there was no order of his disengagement . In hisstatement the workman admitted that he had worked as aCasual labourer as and when he got the work so he earned, may not be sufficiently to live life . There is nothing on recordto showthat the workman was gainfully engaged all through this period i.e. since the day of his disengagement . In my opinion the workman is entitled to 50% of wages what he would have got what for his disengagement so as to supplement his income . It is, however, beld that it was theworkman who failed to appear for interview when his name was sponsored for re -employment alongwith others. Therefore, itwas fair and legal for the Management not to re-employ his service he himself did not come forward to appear in the interview . On this account the werkman, is not entitled toany relief. The reference is answered in these terms. Let acopy of this award be sent to the appropriate ... govt. for necessary action and the file he consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 878.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिंक अधिकरण नं. II, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 358/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/34/2001 - आई आर (डीयू) ] एम. एस. बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी It is on record that the workman lost the opportunity of getting a regular appointment because of the clash of bits between the management and employment exchange. It is a fact that the workman was in the service of the Management on the recommendation of Employment Exchange when fresh requisition was made for sponsoring the candidates for permanent posts ofPeons. As per record the employment exchange did not recommend the name of the workman since on their recommendation , he was already in the service of the management . They sponsored the name of those who were juniors to him . Normally the Management should have included the name of the workman in the list of sponsored candidates saying that the workman was already sponsored by the Employnient Exchange for engagement with the Managertient, but they instead took a narrow view and restricted their consideration to the persons who had been recommended by the 1760

New Delhi . the 28th February, 2007 S.O. 878. ! pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 358/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 11. (Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007 .

[No. L -40012/34/2001 - IR( DU) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH Shri Kuldip Singh . Presiding Officer

Case 1. D. No. 358/2005

Registered on 9-08-2002

Date of Decision 8-12-2006

Petitioner Karnail Singh S o Shri Rachan Singh , Village and P.O. Majatri , Tehsil Kharar, Ropar .

Versus

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] terminating the services of Shri Karnail Singh , Assistant Line Man w.e.f. 27th Feb. , 1992 is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The notice of the reference was given to the parties . The workman appeared through Representative whereas the management appeared through Counsel . The workman filed his Claim Petition and the Management their reply to the Claim Statement. The workman filed his rejoinder . The case was being listed for the affidavits of the parties when the workman stopped appearing in the case in person or through representative . The record of the file speaks that the workman has not appeared in person on any date and he has not appeared through representative for the last three dates including this day . He has also not produced anydocumentary or oral evidence in support of his claim . As against to it the Management has placed on record the photocopies of agreement and the notifications of the Management . The Management has categorically denied that the workman was ever engaged by them or he had served them .

Respondent

The Principal General Manager , Telecom, Telephone Department, Telecom , Sector - 18A , Chandigarh .

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman :Sh. Om Parkash Singh For the Management : Sh . G.C. Babbar

AWARD

The workman continues tobe absent. He has not appeared for the last two dates . Even on the earlier dates he appeared through representative but his representative also stopped appearing after 21st July, 2006. It was in these circumstances that a notice to the workman was issued under R/ C , Postal Receipt No. 4080 dated 27th Sept. , 2006. The notice sent has not been received back even after the expirty of 30 days from the date of issue . The workman is not present today . This shows that the workman has received the notice but he has chosen not to appear . His representative has also not appeared . Therefore , the case is being considered in the absence of the workman .

The Govt . of India vide their Order No. L -40012/34/ 2002- IR (DU ) dated 24th July, 2002 referred the dispute between the parties in the terms " whether the action of the Management of Department of Telecom , Chandigarh in On record there is absolutely no evidence to show that the workman had served the Management as Assistant Line Man w.e.f. June , 1995 till 27th Feb. , 1999 when his services were terminated by the Management without any notice to him and without paying him the retrenchment compensation . The claim of the workman is , therefore, not substantiated by any evidence . As such the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him and the award is passed in these terms . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 879.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 296/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/267/2000 - आई आर (डीयू) ] एन . एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February , 2007

S.O. 879. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 296/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 1761

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on28-02-2007.

[No. L-40012/267/2000-IR(DU) ] N. S. BORA, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- H, CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

Case I. D. No. 296/2005

thathewas engaged as a Security Guard by Shri R.D. Sharвя on 7th Feb. , 1997, and his services were terminated on 27th Feb. , 1999, without any notice, inquiry or charge sheet ; that although he had served the Management for 240 days , but the Management did not follow the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, before terminating his services as he was neither given any notice for termination nor was paid wages for the notice period and retrenchment compensation, The Management has denied the claim of the workman stating that they had never engaged the workman nor he ever served them . According to them the Management was banned to engage any worker directly, therefore, the question of the engagement of the workman did not arise .

Registered on 21-09-2001

Date ofDecision 20-02-2007

Petitioner

Tarsem Singh S/o Shri Mittro , Village Chabarar , PO Nangal , Tehsil Rajpura, Patiala

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom , Sector- 18,

Respondent

Chandigarh

APPEARANCE

Forthe Workman Tanveer Ahmed, AR

Forthe Management : Shri G. C. Babbar, Advocate

AWARD

The parties continues to be absent.

Insupport oftheir claim the Management has placed on record photo copies of agreements and affidavit ofShri Naresh Kumar, SDOP. The workman has , however, not produced any evidence and on record I do not find any evidence to, support the claim ofthe workman that he was engaged by the Management as is claimed and his disengagement was bad in law. In the circumstances the reference is answered against the workman holding that there is no evidence to show that the workman was engaged. bythe Management and that it is they who had terminated his services; and that the paid termination of his services was illegal and unjust. The workman is, therefore , not entitled to any relief. The award is passed against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 880.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यौगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण नं. 11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 963/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The LRs ofthe workman were summoned by a notice under Registered Cover and the same has been received back with the report that no such person of that name resides inthat village . It may be noted here that the workman died during the proceedings and his widow claimed that besides her, the deceased workman has left his son , Jagtar Singh, as Legal Heirs . It was in those circumstances that notices were issued to Ajmer Kaur and then to Jagtar Singh, but the notices to both sent under Registered Cover have been received back unserved with the report that no such person, with those names resides on the addresses given . There is no other address available on record onwhich the LRs of the deceased workman can be served. They themselves have not come forward to prosecute the case.

[सं. एल -40012/461/1999- आई आर ( डी यू) ] एम. एस. बौरा, डेस्का अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007 Thisreferencewas received from the Government of India vide their order no . L-40012/267/2000 - IR(DU) dated 29thAugust, 2000 and they desired to know "whether the action of the Management ofGeneral Manager, Telecom ,. Chandigarh, in terminating the services ofShri Tarsem Singh S/o Shri Mittro, is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date " ?

The notice ofthe reference was given to the parties and the workman filed his Claim Petition whereby he claimed

S.O. 880.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 963/ 2005) orthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their 1762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] workman , which was received by the Central Government on28-02-2007 .

[No. L -40012/461 / 1999 - IR( DU) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL , CHANDIGARH

Shri Kuldip Singh . Presiding Officer

Case 1. D. No. 963/2005

Registered on 15-09-2005

Date of Decision 20-02-2007

Petitioner

Paramjit Singh C/o Shri N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union, Mohalla Hari Nagar, Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab)

Versus

The General Manager , Department of Telecom , Hoshiarpur

Respondent

Management as Clerk in TRA Branch Hoshiarpur on a salary ofRs . 2138from 1st Jan. , 1997 to 28th Feb. , 1999 ; and that the Management terminated his services without notice, inquiry, charge sheet . In reply the Management denied the claim of the workman and stated that there never existed a relationship of employer and employce between the parties . The Management had engaged Shri Ashok Sharma , Contractor to provide work force . According to them the workman was never engaged by them nor he ever served them. Therefore , he is not entitled to any relief. They have also placed on record the copy of the agreement, claimed to be entered with Shri Ashok Sharma on 26th Dec. , 1996 . In support of his claim the workman filed his affidavit whereas the Management filed the affidavit of Shri Manjit Singh , AO ( TRA ) . As stated earlier , neither the workman nor the witnesses of the Management has appeared so far . The affidavits filed by them are not proved . There is no evidence to support the claim of the workman that he was engaged by the Management through the Contractor and it was the Management which had terminated his services on 1st March, 1999. For want of evidence , the claim made by the workman is not proved , therefore , the reference is answered against his holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

APPEARANCE

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer For the Workman : Shri N. K. Jeet

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

For the Management Ms. Dipali Puri , Advocate

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . Management appears through proxy counsel.

का.आ. 881.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 98/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -40012/2/2005- आई आर ( डी यू) ] एन. एस . बोरा, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007

It is on record that the workman has not appeared in thisCourt since long except on 2nd August, 2006. He had been taking opportunities to produce the evidence since many dates but has not produced any evidence nor he has appeared as a witness in the case . On a call by , a notice under Registered Cover , he appeared on 2nd August, 2006 and thereafter has not appeared . It is in these circumstances thatthe reference is being answered in his absence .

The Government of India vide their order no . L-40012/ 461 /99- IR (DU) dated 1.3th March , 2000 has desired to know whether the action of the Management , General Manager , Hoshiarpur in terminating the services of Shri Paramjit Singh , workman, engaged through Contractor Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma , w.e.f. 1st March , 1999 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?

S.O. 881. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 98/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007.

The workman filed his statement of claim on a notice from the Tribunal and claimed that he had served the

[No.1. -40012/2/2005 - IR(DU) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer [ भाग -खंड3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

Case I. D. No. 98/2005

Registered on 17-05-2005

Date ofDecision 17-01-2007

Krishan Kumar S/ o Shri Nand Lal , R/ o Village and Post Office Parwara, Tehsil Chachiot, Mandi (HP)

Petitioner

Versus

The Sub-Divisional Officer , Telecom, BSNL , Sunder Nagar, District Mandi

Respondent

APPEARANCE

:D. R. Sharma&

For the Workman

1763

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

him his termination from service was illegal. That the workman filed a petition before the CAT, Chandigarh which held the workman entitled for the benefits under the 1997 policy but the Management did not consider, his claim saying that he was not on the rule of the Management on 1st,August, 1998. The Management, however, admitted that the workman had served the Management for 240days during the period 1995-96. The workman has also approached the H.P High Court. The workman has claimed that the termination of his services was bad in law, in violation of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter to be referred as Act . The Management further violated the law. 'as fresh appointments were made by them ignoring the claim ofthe workinan . Therefore, his termination be declared as bad in law and he may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits .

Bharat B. Sharma

AR

FortheManagement :

:

Sanjiv Sharma, AR

AWARD

The workman continues to be absent. His Counsel has also not appeared since last date fixed in the case. It was in that situation the notice to the workman was sent underRegisteredCover vide Postal Receipt No. 513 dated 6thDec. ,2006. Today the workman is not present in person or through his Counsel . The notice sent to him under Registered Cover has also not been received back even after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days . This gives arise to the presumption that the notice has been received by the workman but he has chosen not to appear in the case. He seems to have lost interest in the matter . It is in these circumstances the case is being disposed of in his absence . Nobody is present for the management.

The appropriate Government vide their Order No. L-40012/2/2005 IR(DU ) dated 27th April, 2005 desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the Management of District Manager, Telecom , Mandi in terminating the services of Shri Krishan Kumar w.e.f. 24th August, 1996 without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation is illegal and unjustified ? If so to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?

Theworkman supporting the reference claimedthat he was initially engaged as a Daily Wager Mazdoor on 19th Dec. , 1995 and was posted with JTO, Gohar . He continuously served in that situation till 24th August, 1996. The JTOdisengaged him from service orally.Accordingto The Management has denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties besides taking number ofpreliminary objections , It is stated by them that the workman was engaged on day- to-day basis purely for Casual nature of work w.e.f. 19th October , 1995. During Jan. toMarch, 1996, the Management requisitioned a list of candidates for employment on sanctioned posts . The name ofthe workman was sponsored by the Employment Exchange . On the availability of selected Daily Rated Mazdoor, after the selection process , the workman was asked not to come for duty, 24th August. However the workman was paid for the period he worked , Even an experience certificate was issued to him, by SDOT, Sundernagar. The further claim of the Management is that theworkmanhas placed a wrong reliance on the judgements referred to by him . The Management had considered the case of the workman in terms of the directions issuedby the CAT and passed a speaking order which was served upon to the workman. The Management had challenged the order ofthe CAT passed in'OA No. 1146/HP/96 dated 3rdOctober , 2001 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the order ofCAT has beern stayed. According to them theworkman is wrongly claiming benefit ofpolicy of1997 since his name was not recommended by the Employment Exchange nor he was on the role of Management on the day the policy was to take effect . He had also not served for 240 days in a calendar year preceding the relevantdate. It is also their claim that since the workman was a Casual labourer, therefore, he has no right to claim therefore the reference may be answered against him.

As stated earlier the parties have not led any evidence in the case. They have virtually disassociated from the case documents placed by them on record are not proved. The claim made by them in their pleadings has remained unsubstantiated. There is a copy of the order dated21st Jan. ,2002, placed on record, which is issued by the General Manager, Telecom , Mandi in the case of the workman. So as to get the benefit of the scheme ofBSNL , dated 12th Feb. , 1999 a clarification dated 3rd May , 2001 1764

was issued by which the circumstances were given in which the temporary status,to the Casual Labourer, could be given a workman provided he was engaged during the period from 31st March , 1985 to 22nd June , 1998 and he whowas in the service of the Management on 1st August , 1998 and he had served the management at least for 240 days . The workman since was not in the employment of the Management on 1st August, 1998, therefore , he was held to be not eligible for the benefit of that scheme. The workman has produced no evidence to support his claim to rebut the claim of the Management .

There is , however , admission on the part of the Management that the workman had served the management from 19th October, 1995 to 24th August , 1996 , admittedly for more than 240 days . His regularization was considered by the management , after his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange , against the sanctioned post ofdaily rated Mazdoors , but he was not found eligible. On the joining of the selected daily rated Mazdoor he was asked not to come for the duty . The Management by their own pleadings has admitted that on the day the workman was disengaged, he was not given wages for the notice period nor was paid the retrenchment compensation . The Management , therefore, violated the provisions of Section 25 - F of the I.D Act . thus making the disengagement ofthe workman as bad in law. It may be that the management disengaged the workman on the joining of the duly selected daily rated Mazdoor , but they were supposed to follow the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act since the workman had put in 240 days service by that time 12 months preceding the date of his disengagement . The disengagement of the workman was , therefore , is held to be bad in law. He is , therefore , treated to be in service all through this period as if, there was no order of his disengagement .

Since the workman has not appeared as a witness in the case nor has claimed that he has remained without work and was not engaged gainfully during the period he was out ofjob . Therefore , his claim for back wages is not supported and the same is declined.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the disengagement of the workman on 24th August , 1996 was bad in law as the management did not follow the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act before terminating the services . The workman is treated to be in service in the circumstances and entitled to all service benefits except the payment of back wages . In view ofthe discussion made the reference is answered in favour of the workman . The management is directed to take back the workman on the post he was working as 'if there was no order ofhis disengagement by the management . Let a copy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the tile be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 882.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947. का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1014/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/280/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February , 2007

S.O. 882. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1014/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007 .

[No. L-40012/280/2001 - IR(DU) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer Case 1. D. No. 1014/2005 Registered on 17-09-2005 Date of Decision 16-01-2007

Sh . Onkar Nath S / o Late Sh . Shankar Dass , 658-B , Sector -44-A , Chandigarh .

Versus

ThePrincipal General Manager , Telecom , Telephone Department , Sector- 18 - A, Chandigarh .

APPEARANCE For the Workman : Mr. R. K. Sharma For the Management Mr. G. C. Babbar AWARD

Theworkman continues to be absent . Management appears through counsel .

The record of the file shows that the workman appeared only once in this Tribunal in person and on one more occasion through his representative , but thereafter he stopped coming . Upon this , notices were issued to him buthe did not appear . Ultimately notice under R/ c was sent to him on 12th December , 2006 , under Postal Receipt [भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

1765

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

No. 402 dated 12th December , 2006. The workman is not present today despite that notice . The notice sent to him under R/C has been received back with the report that no such person resides at that address . This gives rise to the presumption that he is left with no interest in the case, that iswhy, he is not appearing since long.

The Government of India vide their Notification No. L-40012/280/2001 - IR (DU ) , dated 5th April , 2002, desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon whether the action of the Management of Department of Telecom, Chandigarh, în terminating the services ofSh. Onkar Nath, Ex-Peon , w.e.f. 27th February, 1999 , was just and legal ? If so,what reliefthe workman is entitled to ? For and against this reference, the workman filed the statement of claim and the Management reply thereto. There is also on record therejoinder and affidavit of the workman and a number of documents in the shape of photocopies thereof. However, neither of the parties have appeared to support their pleadings nor have produced any witness to prove the documents placed on record . There is , therefore , - no evidence to show that the Management had terminated the services ofthe workman w.e.f. 27th February, 1999. The claim of the workman that he was appointed by the Management as a Peon w.e.f. 1st October, 1997 and he served them upto 27th February , 1999, when his services were terminated by them , has been denied by the Management in the written statement. It is claimed by them that the workman was not engaged on the date , he has claimed, nor it was they who had terminated his services. According to them the workman was neither appointed by them nor they terminated his services . The Management had entered into contract, for the supply of labour , and they were provided the labour by the said contractor . Therefore, the question of engagement of the workman did not arise . The workman has failed to rebut this claim ofthe Management . He has further failed to prove that his services were terminated by the Management illegally . Therefore, the workman is entitled to no relief. The reference is answered against him and the award is passed. Let a copy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 883.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 599/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/386/99- आई आर (डी यू) ]

एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी 816 G1/07-23

New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007 S.O. 883.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 599/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on28-02-2007 .

[No. L-40012/386/99- IR(DU)] N. S. BORA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH PRESENT:

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

Case No. I. D. No. 599/2005 Registered on 23-08-2005 Date ofDecision 8-12-2006

Rajinder Kumar S/ o. Shri Abhay Ram , C/o . Shri N. K. Jeet, President, Telecom Labour Union MohallaHari Nagar , Lal Singh Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab) Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom , Bhatirida ( Punjab ) Respondent APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Shri N. K. Jeet

For theManagement : Shri G. C. Babbar

AWARD

The workman is not present . He last attended this Court in person on 16th March, 2006 , on which day his statement was recorded. Thereafter, he did not appear. On 27th July, 2006 he filed an application for summoning a witness for him through his representative. Since the Management did not file objections to the application, therefore, the same was allowed even in the absence ofthe workman and it was directed that the withess of the workman be summoned at his expenses . The record ofthe file shows that neither the workman appeared thereafter nor he deposited the diet expenses of the witness so the witness of the workman was not summoned .

Onrecordthere is the claim Petition ofthe workman, the reply ofthe Management, affidavit oftheir witness and photocopies ofdocuments produced by them including the copies of the agreements . The workman has also filed 1766

hisrejoinder and affidavit . He has also made oral statement . However, he has not come forward to cross -examine the witnesses of the Management , likely to be produced. The Management has not got so far full opportunity to support their claim .

In his own statement recorded on 16th March, 2006, the workman deposed that he was appointed through S. N. Taneja, SDO , on his making the application , which is with the Management; and that he was appointed through the employment exchange , but no order of appointment was given to him: that his job was to remove the faults in the line; that the record of his services is with the Management . He denied that he was appointed through the contractor . He claimed that he used to accompany Balbir Chand, Mechanic. He further stated that he did not know any Ashok Kumar Garg nor he was appointed by him . As per record, the workman has not produced anything to show that he was appointedby the Management ; and that he had served them for the period he claimed to have worked for the Management . He claimed that he had worked with mechanic Balbir Chand , but he has not produced him . When the Court directed that the witness be summoned, if his diet expenses are be deposited by the workman neither deposited the diet expenses of the witness nor appeared himself thereafter. The workman claimed that he was appointed by S. N. Taneja , SDO and he had worked under his control . The workman , however , has not produced Shri Taneja, as witness . On record I do not find any evidence except the statement of the workman . If the workman was not in possession of the record , he could at least make efforts to get the same summoned from the Management through the Court . But he has not done so . It is also interesting to note that in his affidavit he claimed to have been engaged by JTO Raman and did not name SN Taneja , the SDO, who had engaged him. Thus he contradicted his own stand.

After going through the file I do not find any evidence to support the claim of the workman that he had served the Management from 1st April , 1998 to 1st March , 1999 on a salary Rs . 2168 ( in the affidavit he has claimed as Rs . 2138). Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him holding that the workman has failed to show that he was engaged by General Manager Telecom , Bhatinda and that his services were terminated byhim in violation of provisions of law and principles of natural justice . The award is passed in these terms. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after duecompletion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 884.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बर्बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 553/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40012 /300/2001 - आई आर ( डी यू) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February , 2007

S.O. 884. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 553/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation. to the management of Telecom Department and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007.

No. L -40012/300/2001 - IR( DU) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , CHANDIGARH PRESENT :

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

Case I. D. No. 553/2005

Registered on 23-08-2005

Date of Decision 8-12-2006

Mahesh C/ o . Shri N. K. Jeet , 27349 , Lal Singh Basti Road , Bhatinda ( Punjab) Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager , Telecom , E- 10- B , Building Behind HPO , Bhatinda ( Punjab ) Respondent APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Shri N.K. Jeet

For the Management ShriG. C. Babbar AWARD

The workman continues to be absent . Management appears through Counsel . He last attended the proceedings on 5th May , 2006 that too through the representatives. The fact is that he has never appeared in person and has not appeared even through representative after 5th May , 2006. It was in these circumstances that the notice was issued to the workman under R/ C Postal Receipt No. 3265 dated 13th October , 2006. The workman was supposed to appear today , but he is not present. The notice sent to him has been received back with the report that the address [भाग II-खंड 3( il) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

given on the R/C is not correct . The address on which the notice was sent to the workman was the address given by the workman in his affidavit, filed on 28th March, 2006. Earlier the notice was given to him on the address given in the order of reference . The address so given was care of his representative, who, as I stated above , stopped appearing in his case. On 1st August , 2006 the said representative Shri N. K. Jeet , stated that he has no instructions to appear in the case. It was in those circumstances that the notice was sent to the workman on the other; only address available, but he has not been served even on that address . This makes the Court to believe that the workman has left without proper address and that he is no more interested in the case.

Theappropriate govt . vide their Order No. L-40012/ 300/2001 - IR(DU) dated 5th February, 2002 desired toknow "whether the action ofGeneral Manager, Telecom Bhatinda, interminatingthe services of Shri Mahesh S/o Shri Harnam Singh, Chowkidarw.e.f. 20-7-1999 wasjust and legal and if not to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

The workman filed the statement of claim , to which theManagement filed the reply, The workman filed rejoinder and also his affidavit. In rebuttal the Management filed the photocopies of a number of documents , such as agreements and letter issued by the Management . The case wasbeing listed for the affidavit of the Management, when the workman stopped appearing , even through his representative. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence produced by the workman in support of his claim that he was engaged by the Management as Chowkidar on 1st Jan., 1998 on a monthly salary ofRs . 1800; and that he had served the Management till 20th July , 1999; that the Management terminated the services of the workman without notice, chargesheet, inquiry or compensation . The Management, in reply has denied the claim ofthe workman and has stated that the workman was never engaged by therm nor he served them as their employee , therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.

Asstated above there is no evidence to support the claim of the workman . The relationship of employer and employee between the parties has been denied. The workman has not appeared to verify the facts stated in the statement of claim and the affidavit . He has also failedto produce any evidence to show that he had worked for the Management from 1st Jan. , 1998 to 12th July, 1998 and thus he had served the management for 240 days , 12 months preceding the date of his termination . The claim made by the workmanis , therefore , not proved. So he is not entitled toany relief. The reference is answered against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief . Let a copy ofthis award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

1767 नईदिल्ली, 28 फरवरी, 2007

का.आ. 885.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ सी आई के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 11 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1120/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/157/2001 - आई आर ( सी -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the28th February, 2007

:

S.O. 885. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1120/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute,between the employers in relation to tire management of Food Corporation of India, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on28-02-2007.

[No. L- 22012/157/2001 -IR(C- H AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH PRESENT:

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer CaseL. D. No. 1120/2005 Registered on 22-09-2005 Date ofDecision 20-02-2007

Karnail Singh S /o Shri Prem Chand, C/o President, BMS Aggarsain Chowk, Mohan Nagar, Kanikshetra. ...Petitioner

Versus

TheDistrictManager , FCI Kurukshetra

...Respondent APPEARANCE :

For the Workman . :SudarshanGoel & Sanjivni ARS

For the Management : Mr. N. K. Zakhmi, Advocate

AWARD

Theworkman continues to be absent. He was issued notice under Registered Cover vide Postal Receipt No.493 dated 20th December , 2006. The notice so sent has not 1768

been received back even after the expiry of two months . This shows that the workman has received the notice but he has chosen not to appear in the case .

The appropriate Government desired to know by their order No. L -22012/ 157/ 2001 - IR( C - II ) dated 21st August, 2002 whether the action of the Management of FCI , represented by District Manager , FCI , Kurukshetra in terminating the services of Shri Karnail Singh , the workman engaged through contractor M/ s . Ex - Servicemen Security Servicesw.e.f. 18th August, 1995 legal and justified ? If not to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?

In response to the notice issued the workman filed the Claim Petition and claimed that he had been serving the Management in their Godown at FSD Kaithal since Jan. , 1995, on a monthly salary of Rs . 1390 that the management terminated his services on 23rd Jan. , 1996 without notice, chargesheet and inquiry and also without paying him the retrenchment compensation. He has prayed for issuing the directions to the Management to reinstate him in service and pay him the back wages besides give him continuity in service and the emoluments due . The Management has opposed the claim of the workman stating that they had never engaged the workman; that the Management had engaged a contractor to provide security to their godowns , thus there never existed a relationship of employer and employees between the parties ; and that to FCI is not an Industry . The Management, therefore , has stated that the workman is not entitled to any relief and the reference may be answered against him. They have placed on record the photocopies of the agreement and other documents . They have also supported their claim by an affidavit of their DistrictManager , Shri A. P. Sharan whereas the workman has filed his own affidavit and rejoinder.

The record of the file speaks that the case was being listed for the evidence of the workman when he stopped appearing in the case . It was in those circumstances the notice to him under Registered Cover was issued towhich he has not responded . The affidavit filed by him has remained not proved . Except that , there is no evidence supporting the claim of the workman . On record 1 do not find any evidence to show that the Management had engaged the workman and that the Management violated the provisions of the law by terminating his services on 18th August, 1995. The workman has utterly failed to prove the relationship of employee and employer between the parties even through Messrs Ex - Servicemen Security Services , Kurukshetra . In view of this the workman is to entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 886.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय खाद्य निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1182/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-2-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/443/2004- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th February, 2007

S.O. 886.-in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1182/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manamanagement of Food Corporation of India, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-02-2007 .

[No. 1.- 22012/443 /2004- IR( C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT . INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , SECTOR- 18, CHANDIGARH PRESENT :

Shri Kuldip Singh . Presiding Officer Case I. D. No. 1182/2005 Registered on 03-10-2005 Date of Decision 12-02-2007

Shri Prem Kumar, S/o Shri Jagdish Chand , R/ o Village Baharimahalla Thanesar . Kurukshetra , (HRY) .

Workman

V/s.

Distt. Manager , Food Corporation of India, Sandeep Chatha Complex , Pipli Road , Kurukshetra .

Management APPEARANCES :

For the Workman Forthe Management Mr. Santokh Singh :Mr. Arun Kumar Batra AWARD

The workman is not present . Shri Dharambir who appeared as representative of the workman and Shri A. K. Batra , Advocate who claimed himself to be the counsel for the workman appeared for him on a number of dates and 1769 [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

New Delhi, the 5th March, 2007 sought time to produce the workman. They also undertook to file the affidavit of the workman, but today both have stated that the workman is not interested to continue prosecuting his claim. The record ofthe file shows that the workman appeared in person on 19th April, 2006 and filed the claim petition . He also filed the authority letter of the person he wanted to represent him . Since then he has not appeared. The workman has remained absent in these proceedings right from 5th July, 2006 and that itselfshows that he has lost interest in prosecuting the present case.

S.O. 887. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 757/ 2005) oftheCentral Govecament Industrial Tribunal -con- Labour Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofPatiala and their workman, which was received by the Contral Governmenton 5-3-2007.

[No. L-12012/288/89- IR(B- III)/IR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Degic Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT:

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

CaseNo. L. D. No. 757/2005

Registered on 12-02-1990

DateofDecision 28-11-2006

Roop Singh , S/o. Shri Pritam Singh, VPO Bughi Pura, TehsilMoga, District Faridkot Petitioner

Versius

TheChiefManager , State Bank ofPatiala, The Mall , Respondent Patiala

APPEARANCE:

Forthe Workman :Shri Hardiyal Singh, AR

For theManagement : Mr. N.1N. K. Zakhmi , AR.

AWARD

The Government of India referred the dispute between the workman and the Management to this Tribunal, and desired to know whether the action ofthe Management of FCI, in terminating the services of Shri Prem Kumar , Watchman, with effect from 23rd August, 1995 was legai andjustified and if not to what relief the workman was entitledto. The workman filed his claim petition and claimed that he had served the Management from May, 199,1 at Pipli- Kurukshetra and that his services were terminated on 23rdAugust , 1995 without notice , charge sheet, inquiry, nor he was paid any compensation. The Management filed reply to the claim petition and stated that the workman was never engaged by them nor he ever served them directly; and that the workman was an employee of Ex- serviceman Security Services , therefore , he has no claim against the Management. In support of his claim the workman has produced no evidence , whereas the Management has filed the affidavit of their witness . The court waited for the workman all this period and directed, him to produce his evidence, but he has not produced any evidence . Thus I find no evidence on record to show that the workman was employed by the Management and his services were terminated by them on 23rd August, 1995 without following the provisions of law and rules . The workman has failed to prove the claim made by him in the claim petition . Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him holding that he is not entitled to any relief. Let a copy ofthis Award be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion:

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer

The following reference was received from theGovt. ofIndia vide theirnotification No. L- 12012/288/89- IRIB - III) dated 7th February, 1990 :

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2007

"Whether the action of the State Bank of Patiala in dismissing Shri Roop Singh, Clerk-cum -Cashier at MansaBranch w.e.f. 6-6-1998 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

का.आ. 887.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.: II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 757/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल -12012/288/89- आई आर ( बी- III )/आई आर (बी-1) ]

Afterthe reference was received , notices were issued to the parties who appeared through their Counsel. The workman filed his Claim Petition, on the replication besides his own affidavit . The Management filed reply to the Claim Petition and also tendered the affidavit of Shri D. N. Garg, the inquiry officer in the case as their witness . They also अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 1770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/ CHAITRA 3 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] placed on record the document Exhibit M- 2 . The Management also placed on record the photo -copies of proceedings of the inquiry held against the workman .

In support of their respective claims the workman examined himself whereas the Management produced Shri D. N. Garg as their witness .

workman replied to the show cause notice but could not convince the disciplinary authority . Therefore , the Disciplinary Authority passed the order as was proposed in the show cause notice and the workman was dismissed from service . The workman filed appeal , but the Appellate Authority did not find any merit in that and dismissed the same. The order of disciplinary authority was conveyed to the workman . Reserving their rights to produce evidence in the Court so as to justify their action it is submitted by them that since the workman had exhausted all the departmental channels , therefore , has no right to question the merits of the decision . Moreover , the proceedings are bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties .

On merits it is submitted by them that the inquiry officer had conducted the inquiry in a fair and proper manner . The workman was given full opportunity to prove hisinnocencebut despite that the workman could not prove that the charges levelled against him were false . It was in those circumstances that the inquiry officer held the charges proved against him . The Disciplinary Authority punished the workman after giving him full chance to state his case . He considered the matter dispassionately. It was on the basis of gravity of misconduct committed that the punishment ofdismissal was awarded to the workman. The Management did not violate the principles of naturaljustice while conducting the inquiry . The workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. Denying the claim of the workman that the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority did not consider the merits and demerits of the case, it is stated that the inquiry was held fairly in which the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. Therefore , the action of the Management was fair and proper.

The claim of the workman is that he was serving the Management as Cashier - cum- Clerk in Mansa Branch and was under transfer to Konke Kalan Branch when he was served upon with a charge- sheet on 25th February, 1987 , which was false and fabricated. He replied the charge- sheet and the inquiry was held against him . The inquiry officer all along with sided with the Management , gave perverse and lopsided findings , by which he proved the charges against the workman . The Disciplinary Authority terminated the services of the workman on the basis of the inquiry held and thereby rendered arbitrarily, discriminatory and harsh decision violating the principles of natural justice . During the inquiry the workman was not provided with the opportunity to cross - examine the witnesses of the Management. The so called complainant was not examined as a witness and the inferences drawn by the inquiry officer were wrong; that the whole case was fabricated against the workman by Fanish Gupta, Deputy Head Cashier who had trade relation with Mrs. Jindal Banaspati Bhandar and against whom the workman produced the evidence of the transaction of Rs . 20,000, but the inquiry officer did not take that fact into the consideration . The Disciplinary Authority did not consider the merit of the proceedings and irregularities committed during the proceedings and terminated the services of the workman on 6th June , 1988 . Hisappeal was also decided without considering the merits and demerits of the case . Thus the punishment awarded to the workman was on the basis of surmises and conjectures , therefore, the inquiry conducted was not fair and the order based upon that was bad in law and the same needs to be quashed.

The workman filed rejoinder , but did not add anything new to the facts already stated by him . He only coritested the claim of the Management , made in the Written Statement and stated that the facts stated by the management, are not correct . He reiterated his claim that theinquiry officer had not considered the facts brought to his notice; and that the findings of the inquiry officer were perverse , therefore , the punishment based thereupon is bad in law .

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman. Giving the details of events having taken place during the inquiry , it is stated by the Management that the workman was charge - sheeted on 25th February, 1987. He was given 10 days time to reply the charge- sheet but he did not submit the reply whereupon the Management decided to hold an inquiry against him and appointed Shri D. N. Garg a Senior Officer as Inquiry Officer . The inquiry officer gave full opportunity to the workman to defend himself. After holding fair and proper inquiry, he found the workman guilty and the charges contained in the charge- sheet dated 25th February , 1985 proved against him . The Disciplinary Authority considered the matter dispassionately and issued a notice to the workman to show cause as to why his services be not terminated in accordance with Bi - partite settlement dated 19th October , 1966 , Shastri Award besides settlement of 1989. The

The workman appeared as a witness in the case . In his statement he admitted the contents of affidavit , filedby him which was exhibited as W- 1 . He admitted that he was charge sheeted and that he had submitted the reply to the charge sheet . He denied that Rs . 1000 /- was received by him in excess and not deposited the same in the Sundry Account.He admitted that he had participated in the inquiry proceedings , along with his authorized representative , and had cross -examined the witnesses of the Management . He further admitted that he was issued a show cause notice about the proposed punishment ; and that he was given personal hearing by the management; and that he had filed [भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

the appeal which was dismissed . On further cross- examination he stated that he is married having children and they are dependent upon the pension of his father besides upon the income from the sale ofbuffalo milk.

From the pleadings of the parties , it is clear that it is the case ofdomestic inquiry where the Management had held inquiry against the workman for his alleged mis- conduct. In such cases , as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case reported as 1999 ( 1 ) SCT 642 the sole judge ofthe facts is the Disciplinary Authority and in case an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority has also the same powers and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusions on facts . In such a situation it is only those very anthorities , who are the fact finding authorities . Once the finding of the facts , based on appreciation of evidence is all recorded, the High Court in itswritjurisdiction cannot interfere with the factual findings normally unless it finds that the finding recorded was perverse and are legally üntenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. In numerous other judgements , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that an inquiry is not an empty formality , but an essential condition to the legality ofthe Disciplinary order . In other words before the delinquent workman is punished, the employer should hold a fair and regular inquiry into his misconduct.

In the present case , the workman admitted that he had participated in the inquiry alongwith his defence representative; and that he had cross - examined the witnesses ofthe Management. He further admitted to have received the show cause notice by which the punishment wasproposed against him . He also admitted that he had filed the appeal and that he was also provided with an opportunity of personal hearing . What he has alleged is that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not appreciate the evidence in the manner they should have done . It is also his allegation that the management did not appreciate the facts , about the nexus of Mr. Fanish Gupta and M/ s . Jindal Banaspati Bhandar, which he had alleged and proved by producing evidence ofa transaction ofRs . 20,000, by way of cheque , issued by Fanish Gupta, in favour ofM/s . Jindal Banaspati Bhandar . He also alleged the connivance of JP Verma in the affair, so as to involve the workman. He also alleged the discrimination givento him stating that in a similar situation M/s . Shashi Bala and Parveen Kumar Singla were given a light punishment of only transfer whereas the workman was dismissedfrom service.

It has come on record that the officials of the Management Bank suspected the role fair working of the workman . Therefore , they took the assistance ofM/ s . Jindal Banaspati Bhandar in proving the same . It was stated so in the complaint against the workman the rupees one thousand were given extra tothe workman who' ifreturn the same to

1771

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

the depositor. The witnesses of the Management, by their statements proved that the said money was recovered from the workman . The workman,by cross-examining those witnesses or by leading any evidence could not prove that the evidence against him was manipulated and fabricated on that the witness had reasons to state so against him .

From the claim of the workman I find that he has raisedno objection to the procedure followed by the inquiry officer inholding the inquiry . The record of the inquiry proceedings also shows that the inquiry officer had given fullopportunityto the workman to defend himself. He was provided with the assistance of a defence representative. He was also allowed to produce his witnesses besides he himselfalso came in the witness box. At his own sweet will theworkman closed his defence evidence. Thus I do not find that the Management failed in its duty, at any stage, to follow the provisions of law in holding the inquiry they violated the principles of natural justice . As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is the DisciplinaryAuthority and the Appellate Authority who couldbe the sole fact finding authorities and this Tribunal cannot substitute its finding facts unless it is shown that the findings of the fact recorded by the disciplinary and appellate authority were perverse and legally untenable. After going through the record of inquiry proceedings I am of the opinion , the findings of the facts was neither legallyuntenable nor perverse .

Ifwe look at the inquiry proceedings , the inquiry officerbefore beginning with the inquiry provided the list tothe workman of the documents and ofthe witnesses the Management desired to produce against the workman. The documents desired to produce against the workman were the book of instructions , the report of D, P. Kaushal, the complaint ofM/s . Jindal Banaspati, statement ofBaldev Singh, Head Cashier , besides the complaint from GMO Office.The management desired to examine S/Shri Kaushal Manager, Ramesh Jain of Jindal Banaspati, FanishGupta, Deputy Head Cashier and R. C. Goyal, Head Cashier. The management examined Shri Kaushal, who was thoroughly cross -examinedby the workman . The workman also cross- examined Fanish Gupta the Deputy Head Cashier, R. C. Goyal , G. S. Mann , J. P. Verma, Baldev Singh as their witnesses .All ofthem were cross- examined by the workmah to his satisfaction . The perusal of their statement shows that the defence representative put very searching questions to the witnesses . There is, however, nothing to show that the workman was able to establish that the alleged occurrence manipulated and for that matter the inquiry held against him was the result of illegal nexus between Fanish Gupta,DeputyHead Cashier, M/s . Jindal Banaspati and its partner Mr. Jain and Mr. J. P. Verma who was claimedtobe the Unit Secretary of the Employees Union . Thus the workman only'alleged that the whole of the adverse atmosphere was created against him by Mr. Fanish Gupta, buthe failed to prove that. He did not put even & question 1772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929

or suggestion to him that he was not friendly with the workman or that he had special relations with M/s . Jindal Banaspati Bhandar . Mr. Gupta , in his statement deposes that while posted as Deputy Head Cashier officiating in the Mansa Branch of the management , he had made the statement before D. P. Kaushal who inquired about the matter initially. He reiterated that Shri Roop Singh had received Rs . 1000 excess from Jindal Banaspati Bhandar and when Roop Singh was leaving the Bank he was called and Rs . 1000 were recovered from him in presence of Ram Kumar , Accountant, Baldev Singh, Head Cashier and J. P. Verma, the Unit Secretary . M/ s . Ram Kumar, Baldev Singh and J. P. Verma appeared as witness . Shri Verma in his statement deposed that on coming to know about the excess payment to Roop Singh he inquired from him , after telling him that there has come a telephonic message for Banaspati Bhandar that an excess amount of money has paid to Shri Roop Singh admitted to have received the money but bit reluctantly. He however, told him that the money he intended to return the money to the management. Mr. Roop Singh , however , could not given any satisfactory reply to the suggestion as to why he had not reported the Deputy Head Cashier with whom he had good relations . Shri Verma was cross- examined by the workman . The workman , during cross -examination could not take out anything to show as towhy Mr. Verma made such a statement . Similar statements weremadebyBaldev Singh , D. S. Mann . Thus we find that the findings of the facts arrived at by the inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority wasnot perverse or legally untenable . From the record I do not find any reason to believe that the Management had not held a fair and proper inquiry against the workman .

1

The reputation of an institution, much more that of a financial institution depends upon the conduct of the functionaries of the institution with the customers . If the functionaries behave in the manner it is alleged and proved in the inquiry , the customers will not believe in that institution and the very business of the institution shall run down . I think no institution can afford to retain such an employee, who will cut the roots ofthe institution , in which he is working. Looking from that angle the punishment awarded to the workman was not disproportionate .

After perusing all the record of the case file , I am of the opinion that the action of the management, State Bank of Patiala, in dismissing Shri Roop Singh , Clerk- cum- Cashier Mansa Branch w.e.f. 6-6-1998 was legal and justified. Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief. His claim is rejected and the award is passed against him. Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion .

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 888.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1 , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -41011/16/2002- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th March, 2007

S.O. 888.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - I , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 5-3-2007 .

[No. L -41011 / 16/2002 - IR(B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:

Shrikant Shukla , Presiding Officer I.D. No. 132/2000 Ref . No. L - 41011 / 16/2002 - IR( B- I)Dt . 31-7-02

Between

Sri Dina Nath Tiwari , Divisional Organization Secretary, Uttar Railway Karamchari Union , 119/74, Qr . No. 61 , Kanpur ( U.P.) 208001

And

TheDivisional Railway Manager , Northern Railway, Allahabad Mandal , Allahabad (U.P. ) 211006

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi referred the following dispute No. L - 41011/16/02- IR (B -I ) dated 31-7-2002 for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum - Labour Court . Lucknow :

" क्या मण्डल रेल प्रबंधक, उत्तर रेलवे , इलाहाबाद द्वारा कर्मकार श्री दयाशंकर आत्मज श्री शिवचरन एवं श्री राजेन्द्र प्रसाद आत्मज श्री राजा राम की दिनांक 1-1-1997 से सेवा समाप्त किया जाना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं, तो सम्बन्धित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? " 1773

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग 11-खंड 3(ii) ]

The trade union office bearers has filed the statement ofclaim alleging therein that Sri Daya Shankar S/ o Sri Shiv Charan and Sri Rajendra Prasad S/o Rajaram have been the members ofthe union "Karmchari Union, Kanpur " and both have worked in Oang Railway Station, Faizalapur Railway Station from 1980 and 1983 respectively till 1991. It is further alleged that they have been working till 1996 thereafter at diffèrent places and posts . It is also alleged that from 1-1-1997 they have not been engaged which amount to retrenchment and the same is improper and illegal. The trade union has therefore demanded that the termination bedeclared as illegal and the workers be taken back in the services with continulty and consequential benefits .

The opposite party has denied the allegations that the workers worked till they were terminated on 1-1-97: It is further submitted that the trade union which has espoused the dispute are not recognised by the railway administration. It is also submitted that casual labour card certifying the service are issued to the casual labours from time to time but the copy of the casual labour card has not been filed bythe trade union with the result it is not possible for the railway adıministration to verify the services of workmen Sri Daya Shankar and Sri Rajendra Prasad. It is submitted that the paid vouchers through which the casual labours are paid harve limited life . The opposite party has admitted that the workers have worked till 1991 but thereafter they have not been engaged. It is submited that the railway.. administration was engaging waterman for providing drinking waterto the passengers during the summer season and such casual labours are engaged for 4 months but this practice is stopped for last 10 years . It is also submitted that there is no post of Paniwala existing at present. It is also submitted that since the engagement of the casual labour are stopped from last 10 years and therefore it is not true to say that they were disengaged from 1-1-97.

The trade union has filed photostat copies of the following documents :

1. The certificate of employment of Sri Daya Shankar s/o Shiv Charan paper No , 1/13, 1/44.

2.Employment certificate in respect of Sri Rajendra Prasad paper No. 1/15 and 1/16.

3. Photocopy of certificate of Daya Shankar for working from April 1980 to Sept. 1980 paper No. C-17/1.

4: Certificate ofemployment the copy ofwhich is on record paper No. 1/13 and 17/2.

5. Certificate of employmient paper No. 17/3 the copyofwhich is already on record i.e. 1/14 . :

for work from 18-4-91 to 14-8-91 paper. No. 17/4. 6. Photocopy of letter of Station Master, Oang 816 G1/07-24

7. Certificate of employment paper No. 17/5 the copy ofwhich is 1/15.

8. Certificate ofemployment paper No. 17/6 the copy of which is already on record ie . paper 1/16.

Worker has also filed scheme of regularisation of. casual labours ofNorthern Railway of Dec., 1996 andphoto- copy ofmanual , grant ofregular scale to waterman during summer season.

The trade unionhas examined Sri Daya Shankar and Sri Rajendra Prasad. The opposite party has examined Sri Jata Shankar Tripathi.

Parties have filed written argument .

Thepleading ofthe trade union is that Daya shankar and Rajendra Prasad were watermen. It is also alleged that the workers were terminated w.exf.. 1-1-97 without conlplying the provision of Section 25 F, G'andH:

Perusedthe written arguments and carefully studied the evidence on record.

Worker Daya Shankar has stated that he workedat the post ofPaniwala from 15-4-30 to 1991. Hotas stated in the year 1990 he has worked at Chunar and thereafter he worked as porter . His specific statement in extinination in chief is that " मैंने 1991 तक पानी पिलाने का कार्य किया और आखिरी महीने 1996 तक पोर्टर का कार्य किया ।

जनवरी 1997 से मुझे कांर्यालय से निकाला गया तब कोई आदेश नहींदिया गया। ""

He has referred paper No. 17/1 to 17/4 and paper No. 17/7 to 17/8 the order for regularisation of casual labour and paper No. 17/16 to 17/20 for providing regular scale and 17/17 and 17/18 are railway documents .

The worker Daya Shankar admitted that paper No. 17/1 the certificate of Station Master mentioning the work from April 1980 to Sept. 1980 as summier season waterman. He has also admitted that paper No.17/2 is document showing him as waterman . He has also admitted that he used to be appointed for making drinking water available .

No casual labour card has been filed to show that the worker has worked tilf the end Dec. 1996. Paper No.1/13 and 17/2 go to show that the worker Daya Shankar has worked as follows:

Days

Year

1981

3 days 1984

5days 1986

23days 1987

26days

Total

57days 1774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007 /CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Another document of Daya Shankar paper No. 1/14 and 17/3 showing the details as under:

accordingly answered in favour of management. The workers are not entitled to any relief.

Lucknow,

Duration

Days

20-2-2007

19-5-90 to 4-8-90

88

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 मार्च , 2007

Besides above there are 2 photocopies which are paper No. C- 17-1 and C - 17/4. C- 17/ 1 shows that Daya Shankar has worked from April 1980 to Sept. 1980 and from 18-4-91 to 14-8-91-119 days. There is no document to show that the worker has worked after 14-8-91 .

Similarly there are followingdocuments in respect of the engagement of Sri Rajendra Prasad Hot season weather Paniwala.

का.आ. 889.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 768/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Paper No. 1-15 and 17/5 both the photocopies ofthe same document showing working details as under:

Duration

[सं. एल-12012/239/91- आई आर ( बी- III ) /आई आर (बी- I) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

Days

New Delhi , the 5th March , 2007

1. 30-6-83 to 11-8-83

14days

2. 16-4-841015-8-8-1

80days

3. 16-4-85 to 16-8-85

17 days

i 4. 22-4-86100-0-86

35 days

Next document is paper No. 1/16, photocopy , the copy of which is 17: 6 showing following details:

S.O.889.--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 768/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-3-2007 .

Duration

Days

1. 10-5-88 to 14-8-88

97 days

[No. L- 12012 /239/91 -IR( B- III )/आई आर (B-1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 2. 1-5-89 to 14-8-89

103days

ANNEXURE

3. 27-4-90 to 14-8-90

113days

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , CHANDIGARH 4. 23-4-91 to 14-8-91

114days

Shri Kuldip Singh , Presiding Officer

427 days

Case 1. D. No. 768/2005 Registered on 5-9-2005 Date of Decision 3-1-2007

Amrik Singh,

Through SBI Staff Congress .

3135 , Sector -22 -D.

Chandigarh

Petitioner

Versus

Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India ,

ZonalOffice ,

Sector - 17 , Chandigarh

... Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Workman : Shri J.G. Verma

For the Management Shri H.C. Hundal ,

Advocate

Although the above documents are not credit worthy as the railway has rutes to issuing the casual labour card showing engagement of casual labour , but even then for the argument's sake if the above documents are to be believed then none of those 2 workers have worked after 14-8-91 . In absence of the documentary evidence the evidence of Sri Rajendra Prasad and Daya Shankar can not be believed. The opposite party has produced Sri Jata Shankar Tripathi , Personal Inspector of Division , Northern Railwaywho stated on oath that since 1991 the engagement ofwaterman is completely stopped and there is no question of terminating or engaging these workers after 1991. The issue before this court is very limited. It has to see whether management terminated the services of workman on 1-1-97 and ifyes i.e. illegal or improper . The workers have failed to establish that they worked after 14-8-91 . Therefore the question of termination does not arise . The issue is 1775

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[भाग -खंड ( ii) ]

AWARD

documents and also did not provide him the opportunity to defend his case.

TheGovt. of India vide their notification No. L- 12012/ 239/91 - IR B-3 dated 19th Sep., 1991 referred the following matter for the adjudication of this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of SBI in imposing penalty of (1) withdrawing the Special Allowance ofTeller , (ii ) treating the entire periodof suspension as not on duty, and (iii ) not to pay any back wages for the period of suspension to Mr.Amrik Singh Makker, is legally valid and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

The further claim ofthe workman is that the Inquiry Officer proved the charges against the workman by misreading the evidence of the Management. The Management did not provide to the workman the recorded statement of Shri A.K. Sharma, who deposed in favour of the management so as to confront him as be bad made contradictory statement at two occasions. The Inquiry Officer further committed procedural lapse by depending upon the pre-recorded statement of the witness . The Disciplinary Authority punished the workman by withdrawing the teller aflownice, drawti by the workmch . His period of suspension was also not treaned as on duty nor he was paid setary for that period. His appealwas also rejectedby the appellate authority sinibuly . Thái thẻ áctión oftheManagement was flegal and unjustified, based upon misreading of contradictory statements. They further committed lapse by deducting the provident fund and festival loans from the subsistence allowance paid to the workman and thus they made the workman to suffer by their action and for that reason also the report of the inquiry and the action based thereupon is bed in law, itt judicious and is required to quashed.

Onthe notice issued to the parties, on the receipt of the reference , they appeared through their representatives who changed from time to time. The workman filed his statement of claim and also placed on record photo copies ofanumber ofdocuments . The management filed the reply in the shape of Written Statement . They also placed on record the photo copies of a number of documents including that of the charge - sheet served upon the workman the reply given by the workman , the proceedings of the inquiry: The workman filed his affidavit and the Management produced the affidavit of Shri Ved Prakash Handa, their witness. Beth the workman and Sari Ved Prakash appeared as witness in the case.

The management has opposed the claim of the workmanby their Written Statement . It is their claim that the workman was found guilty of gross misconduct committedby hlin on 2nd Sep. , 1988 ; as hehad hadulged in creating a riotous soene and disorderly behaviour within the bankpremises: For that he was charged-second After having been found to be the guilty of misconduct, wis dismissal from service was proposed but after hearing bith personallyonly the purishment of withdrawal of special allowance a teller, treating the period ofsuspension as not onduty and non -payment of back wages for the period of suspension , except the amount already received by him subsistence allowance was awarded toto him. His appeal was also not accepted. Claiming that the reference made under ID No. 23 of 1989 was decided in thein favour, it is claimed by them that the allegation made in Para No.Armas wrong and incorrect. According to them the worseman had approached Shri C.L. Bhatia Assistant Adamager Cash and demanded one rupee note packet from him he got and raised when Mr. Bhatia asked him to wait for maction sincs he was handling the cash. The workman assaulted Shri Blutia and alse called him abuses in the name of his sister and mother. He also caused him injuries on the ghock and other parts of the body. Admitting that both the workssan and the complainant, had lodged the peportes and that in preliminary inquiry was conducted by Shri BB Panth. According to them the suanagement mesamet hound to provide the copy ofthe preliminary report to the workspan as the same was not used against him. It is also their claim that the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Inquiry Officer Halt also followed the perfictiles The claim oftheworkman is that he had joined service with the management as Clerk- cum-Cashier in its Sirsa Branch on 24thApril, 1974 and had also served them in the Regional Office; that the management had ignored the claim ofthe workman for promotion twice against which he raised the Industrial Dispute, which was referred for the consideration of the Industrial Tribunal as ID No. 23 of 1989. That annoyed the Management and he was transferred toMadhyaMargBranch and then to the extension Counter in Sector-8, Chandigarh ; that on 2nd Dec. , 1988 hewent to theHeadCashier ofthe Regional Office , Extension counter and asked for a fresh packet of one rupee notes, but the Head Cashier behaved with him curtly and also assaulted him causing him injuries on the right hand and the forehead . The workman göt himself medically examined. The Head Cashier Shri R.C. Bhatia recorded his version of the incident in the Diciplinary Action Register whereas the same should be recorded by the Branch Manager . A month thereafter he added the allegation ofabuses in the complaint, but the same could not be proved . The management initiated preliminary investigations against the workman a copy of which was not provided to him, that there were complaints of assault from both sides, duly supported by the medical certificates but the management took no action against Shri Bhatia, rather he was promoted. The Management served the workman with a charge - sheet but they did not consider the reply given by him and initiated the inquiry proceedings headed by Shri R.C. Sharma. The Inquiry Officer held the inquiry iff violation of principles ofnatural justice. He denied the workman the supply of relevant

816G1/07-25 1776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii )] ofnatural justice and the rules governing the parties . They denied that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply his mind. Rather the Diciplinary Authority had taken a lenient view in this matter and awarded the punishment in terms ofBi -partite settlements and Desai Awards . They further claimed that the appeal of the workman was rejected after due application of mind and the order passed against the workman is well justified. They have also claimed that the deductions made from the subsistence allowance against the head of PF and loans were justified. The workman therefore, is not entitled to any relief.

that he had participated in the inquiry but has alleged that the Inquiry Officer; while awarding him punishment misread the evidence produced in the case . He did not appreciate the reply given by the workman to the chargesheet; and that the Appellate Authority also did not apply his mind and dismissed the appeal similarly . Thus the question, of holding a domestic inquiry before awarding the punishment to the workman is not a dispute . What is alleged by the workman is that the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not act judicially while considering the case and, therefore , the punishment awarded is bad in law .

The workman proved his affidavit , Exhibit W- 1 . He also relied upon the circular exhibits W- 2 to W- 5 and stated that he had participated in the inquiry; that he was served with a show cause notice . He was also given personal hearing and was also served upon with a tentative order of dismissal . He had also preferred an appeal but stated that it is incorrect to claim that he was given full opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings . The witness of the management Shri Ved Prakash Handa proved his affidavitExhibit M - 2 and stated that he was associated with the case while posted in the Zonal Office, and that he was not posted either with Disciplinary Authority or in the office of the AGM when the workman was punished.

It may be noted here that the workman appeared through his representative on 26th May, 2005 , when the case was before CGIT- cum- Labour Court - I , Chandigarh . Thereafter , it was transferred to this Tribunal . Numerous notices were issued to the parties, but the workman did not appear and ultimately a notice under R/C was issued to the workman . It was then the workman appeared through the Counsel but on the subsequent date again absented . It is in these circumstances that the case was reserved for orders being a very old case .

I have gone through the file and have also considered the submission made by the Management in writing .

Theworkman has challenged the order , by which he was awarded the punishment of withdrawal of teller allowance, treating the period of his suspension as not on duty and for non - payment of salary for the suspension period , on a number of grounds . It is his case that the management has punished him by misreading of the documents produced during the inquiry. The management did not consider the reply of the workman to the charge- sheet and show cause notice ; that the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal similarily without application of mind. He has also alleged that since the Management deducted the Provident Fund contribution and festival advance subscription, from the subsistence allowance , paid to him, therefore , also the order passed by the management was bad and it needs to be quashed .

Here it is necessary to note that in a domestic inquiry the Tribunal has limited jurisdiction to exercise as it cannot substitute its opinion to the Disciplinary Authority so far itcomes to the conclusion on facts . Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that even the High Court does not enjoy the jurisdiction to appreciate and come to its own conclusion on facts.According to their Lordship the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority are the sole facts authority findings . Once the findings ofthe facts based upon the conclusions ofthese authorities are recorded, the High Court in the writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were perverse and/ or legally untenable . In this regard the reference can be made to thejudgements ofthe Apex Court reported as 1999( 1) S.C.T. 642. The law is, therefore, settled that in a case ofdomestic inquiry , the Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority . At the best it has the jurisdiction to examine whether the two authorities followed the procedure laid down by the standing orders , rules and notification and also followed the principles of natural justice while holding the inquiry . In other words whether the workman was informed of the exact charges whichhe is called upon to meet ; whether he was given opportunity to explain any material relied upon by the management to prove the charges , whether the evidence of the Management was recorded in the presence of the workman and he was given full opportunity to cross - examine those witnesses; whether the copies ofthe documents reliedupon by the management were provided to the workman andhe was also permitted to inspect any of the documents , relied upon the management , whether the employee was allowed to produce both documentary and oral evidence in his defence and whether he was allowed to examine himself as a witness and was also provided with the assistance to produce the material and relevant documents the employee desired to produce ; and whether he was provided with a copy of the inquiry report and was allowed to make the representation to the Disciplinary Authority against the findings of the Inquiry report . In order to find out whether theManagement followed these basic requirements of fair and proper inquiry, we have to go to the evidence ofparties, a summary of which has given above.

This is a case in which the workman was punished after holding a domestic inquiry. The workman has admitted 1777

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

The punishment awarded to the workman was also not disproportionate to the alleged conduct of the workman. The workman is , therefore , not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . Let a copy of this award be sent to the appropriate govt. for necessary action and thefile be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 890. औद्योगिक विवाद अभिजियम , 1947 (1947 का 14. ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सामरीमाई. एसेट मेनेजमेन्ट कं. प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बनिऔर उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट धनिवार्य में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय 4-1 पुरया के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 26/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2007 को हुआ

[सं. एल-12011/304/2003 - आई आर (बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 13th March ,2007

S.O.890 in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes: Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref: No: 26/2004) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunakeun- Labour Court No. I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Inchestrial Dispute between the management ofUTI Anet Management Co. Pat. Lad ,and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-3-2007saq

No. L- 12011 /30-4/2003 - IR( 8-11) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Off icer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.' L' MUMBAI

Present ?

JusticeGhanshyam Dass, PresidingOfficer

ReferenceNo.COIT 260 € 2004 ازم

PARTIES:

i

Employers in relation to the management of, UTI AssetManagement Co. Pvt. Ltd.

AND

TheirWorkmen

APPEARENCES

The workman in his statement admitted that he was chargesheeted and an inquiry was held against him ; that he had participated in the inquiry , that he was served with ashow cause notice by which tentative punishment was proposed; that he was given personal hearing; and that the tentative punishment of dismissal was changed to the withdrawal of allowance ; and that he had preferred an appeal against that order. He, however, in the end stated that he was not given full opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry proceedings . Neither in the statement before thisTribunal he detailed as to what he expected from the management so as to say that he was given full opportunity todefend himself. In the statement of claim he alleged that the inquiry officer and the Disciplinary Authority had misread the evidence produced in the inquiry. He failedto convince the appellate authority about this allegation. In this Tribunal also he could not show as to what should have been read in the evidence, produced during the inquiry which the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority did not read. He could also not say as to how the principles of natural justice violated during the inquiry. He failedto show as tohow Shri A.K. Sharma, the witness made contradictory statements . Thus I find that the appreciation of the evidence, done by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority is not such which can be described as perverse and legallyuntenable. In fact it is the case of the workman that the unfortunate incident had occurred when he approached Shri C.L. Bhatia and demanded a pack ofone rupee fresh notes. It cannot be accepted that Mr. Bhatia on such a demand could have attacked the workman , whọ was his colleague and posted in the same Branch . The Workman has admited that both the workman and Shri Bhatia had sustained injuries in the incident which took place in the Chamber ofMr. Bhatia. It cannot accepted that the offence should have been given by Bhatia and even if Mr.Bhatia behaved curtly with the workman it was expected ofthe workman to have approached the Branch Manager about the behavior of Mr. Bhatia and instead should not have altercated with Mr. Bhatia about his misbehaviors . The behaviors of the workman definitely created an atmosphere which could not have been left unnoticed or which would have definitely affected the congenial atmosphere required for the working of financial institution . The workman has utterly failed to show that the management has punished him after being annoyed about the raising ofdispute by him against them which culminated into a reference, by the appropriate govt. It cannot be accepted that all the employees posted in that Branch were annoyed with the workman , as they could not be responsible for the denial benefit to the workman resulting into his raising the demand and the reference.

For the Management : Ms. N. Menon , Adv.

For the Association

Mrs Kala Deshpande, Legiti

Advisor

:

:"Maharashtra

State

After going through all the evidence available on record I am of the opinion that the management did not commit any procedural lapse nor violated the principle of natural justice, in holding the inquiry against the workman.

1778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24 , 2007/CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Mumbai , dated the 28th day of February 2007 .

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub Section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L - 12011 /304/2003 /IR ( B - II ) dated 24-3-2004. The terms of reference given in the schedule are asfollows:

"Whether the demand of the union for giving/ exercising the IIIrd option for pension to the employees of the erstwhile UTI (Now UTI AMC Pvt . Ltd.) w.e.f. 1-9-2000 at par with the RBI/IDBI in view ofterms contained in Settlement dated 18-4-1996 read with Settlement dated 28-3-2001 is legal , proper and justified ? If so. what releif the union is entitled for and from which date and what other directions are necessary in the matter ?"

2. The dispute in between the workmen ofUnit Trust of India ( AMC ) Pvt . Ltd. and its Employer for giving/ exercising the third option for pension .

employees who joined UTI on or after 1st Jan. 1995. The UTI issued again Administrative Circulardt . 24-12-1996 under the title UTI Pension Regulations 1994 for exercising ofthe IInd option in view of the fact that RBI had issued a circular for giving IInd option for pension to its employees and UTI management honoured its commitment for giving the IInd option . On 4th September 2000 to allow all existing employees (CPF optees ) and also those employees who were in the Bank service as on 1-11-1997 but retired thereafter thatCPF benefits to exercise a fresh option to be governed by RBI Pension Regulations . Immediately thereafter Union brought to the notice of the management of UTI ( AMC) Pvt. Ltd. for giving options for pension . At that time, the negotiations about the charter of demand were in progress and for this reason the management assured that once the charter ofdemand is settled , the question of giving another option for pension will be resolved . On 28-3-2001 a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into which was made effective from 1st Jan. 2001. After the aforesaid settlement , the Union hoped that management will hold further discussion regarding pension option and the management was submitted a list of residual issues as desired by the management . The dialogues in this respect continued. It was even discussed during the All India Central Executive Committee who conveyed to the management vide letter dt . 11-1-2003 . On 18-1-2003 the meeting ofthe Association with Department of HRD under the Chairmanship of Chairman , UTI was held but the management avoided this issue and put on record about the re - structuring of UTI which became effective from 1st Feb. 2003 and UTI ( AMC) Pvt. Ltd. came into existence . TheUnion wrote to the Chairman , UTI (AMC) Pvt . Ltd. on 13-7-2003 and thereafter, raised the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner on 28-5-2003 . The conciliation failed and hence the Central Government made the reference .

3. The statement of claim has been filed by the Dy. General Secretary of All India Unit Trust Association (hereinafter referred to as Union for the workmen) . The UTI was established as statutory corporation within the broader canvass of Reserve Bank of India ( R.B.I. ) by an Act of Parliament in the year 1963. In the year 2002 , Parliament enacted UTI ( Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal ) Act , 2002 , as a consequence ofwhich UTI ( AMC) Pvt. Ltd. was formed by State Bank of India, Bank ofBaroda, Punjab National Bank and Life Insurance Corporation of India under the provisions of UTI (Transfer of undertaking and Repeal ) Act, 2002. The management of UTI ( AMC) Pvt. Ltd. introduced Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS ) , as a result ofwhich around 1,200 employees out of 2,400 opted for VSS which include around 500 workmen employees. Out of them around 300 employees in workmen category are covered under the mandatory Pension Scheme introduced in 1995. The present reference factually is concerning to around 200 employees who hadjoined UTI prior to 1995 and who have not opted for pension in the year 1997.

In view of charter of demand it was agreed vide memorandum of Settlementdt . 14-6-1982 that " Management agrees to consider formulating a suitable Pension Scheme on the lines of Schemes formulated by RBI and IDBI , if and when finalized by them ." Again in the Settlementdt . 15-9- 1990 Management agreed to consider formulating a suitable pension Scheme on the lines of the Scheme formulated by RBI and IDBI , if and when finalized by them . The RBI and IDBI formulated a Scheme for its employees in 1993 and immediately thereafter , the UTI introduced . Pension Regulations 1994. Pension was compulsory for the

The contention of the Union is that the workmen are being extended the same service conditions and pay and allowances equal to those prevailing in RBI and IDBI . The first wage settlement was arrived in the year 1982 on the same lines as evident from clause 16( 3 ) whereby management agreed to consider formulating a suitable pension scheme on the lines of schemes formulated by RBI and IDBI if and when finalized by them . It was accordingly made . The employees were given even IInd option ofpension when RBI issued the circular in the year 1996 immediately after pay revision . The IIIrd option of pension in RBI came in 2000 immediately after pay revision but the UTI ( AMC) Pvt . Ltd. refused to offer it under the garb of on going negotiations talks for charter of demand in the year 2000 which ended by signing of a Memorandum of Settlement dt . 28-3-2001 .It is contended that the management has assured at the time of the signing of the Settlement that it will consider the third Pension option. However, even after signing of the above settlement, the 1779

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007 /चैत्र 3, 19:29

[ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

stand that at the time of the execution of the settlement di. 28-3-2001 the management had assured that circular wenid be issued for introduction of one mere Pension option after signing ofthe aforesaid memorandum of Settlement . The assurance was oral and not in writing. The Union also examined before the Tribunal Mr. Harish Sharma, President ofUnit Trust Associaton on the point of assurance given out by the management at the time of the signing of the settlement dt . 28-3-2001 . Fie also stated that the management meant A.R. Palwarkar , Executive Director , Mr. D.S.Murthy, ExecutiveDirector, B.S. Pandit, Executive Director and Mr. M. Parameshwaran , Chief General Manager . He has been cross-examinedby the learned counsel for the management.

management continued its efforts for settlement providing for a separate pay scales and service conditions independent of RBI and IDBI and for this purpose, management (Personnel ) even visited Centres and addressed General body meetings to emphasize upon the employees to accept that but the Union rejected this proposal and did not agree to the service conditions independent ofRBI and IDBI . It is also contendedthat the aforesaid settlement dt. 28-3-2001 was made effective from 1st Jan. 2001 in view of the assurance by the management tooffer one more Pension option on the lines ofRBIwhich had issued IIIrd option for Pension in September 2000. The Management however did not agree to issue IIIrd option for Pension and thereby betrayed the Union by not honouring its own commitment in the form oforal assurance for considering the IIIrd option of pensjon.

8. The management filed affidavit of Shri R Subramanyam, Vice-President HRD on behalf of tire management in view of examination in chief. He has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for theUnion He has admitted in his cross-examination dist Pension was made compulsory forUTI from 1995, He could not recollect asto how manyworkmen have joined prior to 1995 andbad notopted for pension . He also admitted that he did not file any document to show the burden ofRs . 64 crores on the implementation of the IIIrd option of Pension. He adse admitted that management had come forward suo motio regarding thede- linking of service conditions from RBI and for it, it had issued that letter dt. 9-10-2000. He also stated that officers ofUTI addressed the workmon Umion about the de - linking of service conditions shor sigting of the memoranduns of Settlement and that Delhi Union Itind issued a notice of strike against the de- lindring of service conditions. He was fully associated with the negotiation for settlementdt. 28-3-2001 . The V5S was introduced in 2003. The UTI created Pension Fund near about September 2003.He is not able to say as to how many workinen have beenbenefitedby the VSS and how much financial burden have been there upon the UTI . He also specifically stated that matter of pension was discussed during negotiations, forde- linking.He cannot say at present that discussion of pension was recorded in minutes or not . TheManagement had said during discussions that it would look into the demand of pension. The UTI gave pension option in September 2001. The UTI did not grant the pension option accordingly . The parties have, filed the documents which have been accepted on record since they are not in dispute.

9. 1I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The written submissions furnished by the parties have also been perused.

6. The contention of the management is that in view ofthe settlernent dt. 28-3-2001 it has been expressly agreed upon that the service conditions of the employees of the erstwhileUTI would be de- linked from IDBI and RBI w.e.f. 1-1-2001 . Vide clause 22 of the settlement, it was agreed that all other residual issues would be discussed separately. Vide clause 23 of the aforesaid settlement it was agreed upon that the Union would not raised any new demand either directly or indirectly involving any financial burden on the employer. The Union raised the question of IIIrd option ofpension for the first time in 2nd April, 2002 after above a year from the aforesaid settlement . The Union did not raise the question of Pension option in its earlier letter dt . 8th April , 2001 while discussion ofall residual issues . The Union raised the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissionerjust to create pressure upon the management and the management had set out in detail the facts before the concerned Labour Commissioner which led tothe failure of the conciliation talks. Since the de- linking of service conditions from RBI and IDBI is there w.e.f 1st Jan. , 2001 in view of the Settlementdt 28-3-2001 and there was no assurance as alleged, the union is not entitled to raise the dispute or claim any reliefalt is also contended that the issue of pensian could not be kept upen for indefinite period and if accepted would cause a financial burden to the tune ofapproximately 64 crores . The managerment was not bound by the IIIrd option of Pension of RBI since it was at liberty to formulate its Pension policies after de- linking of the service conditions. The Union could not have anylegitimate expectation for issue of IIIrd option of Pension in the terms of RBI since there was no assurance from the side of the management alleged and all allegations in this respect are specifically denied.

10. The short question for consideration is as to whether the workmen are entitled for the Ilird option of Pensiondespite the signing ofthe settlement dt. 28-3-2001.

11. The basis of the claim for the union is that it had beenenjoying the same service conditions with all benefits at par with R.B.I. and IDBI, that it had been given ist and IInd option of Pension in accordance with the circular 7. The Union filed the affidavit of Shri Ishwar Gurmasighani in lieu ofhis examination in chief in support ofthe claim of the union in the capacity ofthe Dy. General Secretary ofAll India Unit Trust Employees Association . Hehas been cross -examined by the learned counsel for the anagement. There is nothing worth in it . He reiterated his 1780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 24, 2007 / CHAITRA 3 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] issued by the RBI in that respect and that the management had assured for grant of Pension option at the time of the signing ofthe memorandum of settlementdt. 28-3-2001 .

14. On a consideration of the aforsaid rulings I find that except the ruling of Ram Pravesh Singh V/s . State of Bihar 2006(8 ) SCC 381 , none of them is applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case . The case of Rabindranath Mukhopadhyay ( supra ) is related to the grant ofLeave Travel Concession , the case of Jayrajbhai J. Patel (supra) is related to the dispute of election ; the case of master Marine Services Pvt . Ltd. ( supra) is related to distribution of State largesse /Government contractswhich was discussed under the concept of public interest; the case ofDamoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank (supra) is related to the question of misconduct and the importance of recording of reasons for passing the Administrative order; in the case of State of West Bengal and its employees (supra) the fixation of the date for exercising the option for pension was not found to be arbitrary or irrational or violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India in view of fixation of date of pension by Pay Commission . The last case of Confederation of Ex - Servicemen is related tothe grant ofMedicare/Medical Air to the Ex- servicemen and the right to get free and full medical aid was not found to be a fundamental right of Ex- Servicemen . Hence these cases are not applicable to the present case .

15. The Honourable Supreme Court has laiddown the law relating to legitimate expectancy in the case ofRaam Parvesh Singh Vs. State ofBihar 2006 (8 ) SCC 381 and the ratio ofthe decision is that doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked only by someone who had dealings or transactions or negotiations or a legal relationship with the authority concerned and none other can invoke the said doctrine merely on the ground of a general obligation ofthe authority to act fairly .

12. The main contention of the management is that the issue of Pension could not be kept alive forever and more so the service conditions of the workmen were de- linked from IDBI and RBI w.e.f. 01-1-2001 and that there was no oral assurance as alleged by the Union . There is no dispute about the fact regarding the incorporation of UTI and UTI ( AMC ) Pvt . Ltd. There is no dispute about the fact that the workmen had been given all benefits which were being availed by the staff of RBI and IDBI since 1994 under Pension Regulation 1994. The Ist and IInd option of the Pension was given to the staff of RBI was extended to the workmen under reference despite the existence of Memorandum of Settlement . It is the admitted position that as and when there was any circular issued by the RBI regarding upward pay revision and accordingly the pension , it was accorded to the workmen under reference . The dispute arose when the RBI issued the IIIrd option in September 2000 and the management avoided its extension on the plea of execution of Memorandum of Settlementdt . 28-3-2001 . It is also contended that the Union raised the dispute after about one year which is not maintainable and that the Union could not claim any benefit of legitimate expectancy. The Union did not raise the issue on Pension in the letterdt. 8-4-2001 , issued just after the signing ofthe memorandum of Understanding dt . 20-3-2001 which was with respect to discussion of residual issues under clause 22 of the aforesaid settlement . It is also submitted that at the time of signing of the bipartite settlement dt . 18-4-1996, itwas made clear that the Pension Scheme would continue but there was no assurance given that it would be kept open for all times to go .

13. In support of the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the management, the following rulings have been cited:

(i) ( 1997) 4 SCC 252 Rabindranath Mukhopadhyay and Anr Vs. Coal India Limited and Anr;

16. The learned counsel for the union cited 1998(4) LLL 991 ( Supreme Court ) National Building Construction Corporation V/ s . S.P. Singh and others wherein the Honourable Supreme court has held that legitimacy of expectation has to be determined keeping in view larger public interest and not according to claimant expectation . The legitimate expectation should be displaced by policy decision which was passed on objective assessment of prevailing circumstances .

( i) (2006) 8 SCC 200 Jayrajbhai J. Patel Vs. Anilbhai N. Patel;

(iii) (2005) 6 SCC 138 Master Marine Services Pvt . Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson ( Pvt .) Ltd.

17. The learned counsel for the Union has also cited N. Kumar V/ s . Union of India 2001 ( 89) FLR 314 (Allahabad High Court ) wherein the honourable High Court has laid down as below :

(iv) (2005 ) 10 SCC 84 Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank Vs. Munna Lal Jain;

"From the survey of various decisions it may be observed that the doctrine of legitimate expectation contemplates:

(v) ( 1993 ) 4 SCC 62 State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Ratan Behari Dey;

(i) Fairness in action;

(vi) 2006 ( 8 ) SCC 381 Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. State ofBihar;

(ii) Equal treatment ;

(vii) (2000) 1 Bom C.R. 743 B.J. shetty Vs. Air India Limited and Anr .

(iii) Absence of arbitrariness ;

1781

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 24, 2007/चैत्र 3, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3(ii ) ]

(iv) The authority is to follow the normal course of conduct in its dealing with the person concerned; and

(v) Judicial review of the authority concerned.

These principles may be made applicable even though the aggrieved person has no legal right in private law as stated in Halsbury's Laws of England that the person may have legitimate expectation of being treated in certain way by an administrative authority having no legal right in private law to receive such treatment ."

Mr. Harish Sharma, a witness for the Union in the capacity of President of All India Unit Trust of India Association stated that assurance was given by the management. The managementmeans Mr. A.R. Pałwankar, ExecutiveDirector, Mr. D.S. Murthy, Executive Director B.S. Pandit, Executive Director and Mr. M.P. Parameshwaran , Chief General Manager. The management had the opportunity to examine any one ofthem to rebut the theory of assurance but this Course was not opted for the reasons best known to it. Contrary to it, the management examined Mr. R. Subramanyam , Vice-President, HRD of UTI AMC Pvt. Ltd. who admitted in his cross -examination in clear terms that the management had said during discussion that it would look into the demand of Pension meaning thereby there was a clear cut assurance to consider the issue of Pension as and when opportunity arose for it . In this contest, the denial of oral assurance by the management is not acceptable . In this view ofthe matter, despite the fact that delinking of service conditions was mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding dt . 28-3-2001 , the employees had the legitimate expectation on the basis of the oral assurance that they would be given the liberty for exercising the IIIrd option of Pension in all fairness equity if it was so given by the RBI to its staff. Hence, theory oflegitimate expectation is available to the workn under reference.Keeping in mind the settled legal positi in the aforesaid cases the non-raising of issue at the time of discussion of residual issue does not make any difference and the fact that the Industrial dispute was raised for the first time after one year from the settlement dt . 28-3-2001 before the Regional Labour Commissioner also does not help the management for showing that the dispute is belated and is not maintainable.

19. In view ofthe aforesaid discussions , I conclude that the demand of Union for giving/exercising the IIIrd option for pension to the employees of the erstwhile UTI (Now UTI AMC Pvt . Ltd. ) w.e.f. 1-9-2000 at par with the RBI/IDBI in view of terms contained in Settlement dated 18-4-1996 read with Settlement dated 28-3-2001 is legal , proper andjustified.

20. An Award is made accordingly.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer 18. The main contention of the UTI (AMC) Pvt. Ltd. for denial of IIIrd option of Pension is the existence of Memorandum ofUnderstandingdt. 28-3-2001 wherein the service conditions of the employees have been delinked from RBI and IDBI w.e.f. 1-1-2001 and the Union did not raise the dispute of pension either at the time of signing of the aforesaid settlement or thereafter by issuing the letter dt. 2-4-2001 for discussion on the residual issues . On the face of it, it appears to be true that delinking of service conditions as per settlement dt . 28-3-2001 is there but still the staff did not accept it and the management knew it fully well with open eyes. The management admittedly to impress upon the staff went on propagating the acceptance of delinking by having direct meeting with the staff at the Centres and organizing seminars/ conferences for it . Ifthere was no dispute about the service condition there was no justification for the management to approach by going directly to the Centres and having seminars and conferences for it to make the employees agreeable with the delinking of the service conditions . It is clear on record that the staff did not accept it and straightaway refuséd the proposal at every stage . The issue of Pension was not raised while discussing the residual issues since the Pension option was not a issue to be discussed therein . The employees were under hope that they would get the benefit of Pension as and when the opportunity arose by upward revision of pay scale and Pension by the RBI . The basis of this hope was a clear cut assurance given out by the management for it at the time of signing of the settlement dt. 28-3-2001 . The management has tried to denythe factum ofgiving the assurance but this denial is apparently false .

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Puri, New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi- 110054, 2007