This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली , मार्च 25 - मार्च 31 , 2007 , शनिवार/चैत्र 4 चैत्र 10, 1929

सं. 13]

No. 13] NEW DELHI , MARCH 25- MARCH 31 , 2007 , SATURDAY/CHAITRA 4- CHAITRA 10, 1929 इस भाग. में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

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

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

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Economic Affairs ) वित्त मंत्रालय (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(Banking Division)

(बैंकिग प्रभाग )

New Delhi , the 19th March , 2007 नई दिल्ली, 19 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 891. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ( समनुषंगी बैंक ) अधिनियम 1959 ( 1959 का 38 ) की धारा 26 की उपधारा ( 2क ) के साथ पठित धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( गख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्वारा श्री डी. एस. नागराज , उपाध्यक्ष , अनुषंगी बैंक अधिकारी संघ इकाई स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर को अधि सूचना की तारीख से 3 वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या उनका उत्तराधि कारी नामित किए जाने तक या उनके द्वारा स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर का अधिकारी पद छोड़ने तक, जो भी पहले हो , स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर के निदेशक बोर्ड में अधिकारी कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है, बशर्ते वे छः वर्ष से अधिक की अवधि तक लगातार पद धारण नहींकरेंगे ।

S.O. 891. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (cb) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 25 read with sub- section (2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks ) Act, 1959 (38 of 1959 ) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank , of India, hereby nominates Shri D. S. Nagaraj , Vice- Chairman, Associate Banks Officers ' Association : Unit State Bank ofMysore as Officer Employee, Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Mysore , for a period of three years from the date of notification or until his successor has been nominated or until he ceases to be an officer of the State bank of Mysore , whichever is earlier , provided that he shall not hold office continuously for a period exceeding six years .

[F. No. 8/7/2006 -BO -I ] G.B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.

[फा. सं. 8/7/2006- बी ओ- I ] जी. बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव

(1783)

931GI/2007 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

1784

प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च , 2007

" 18. डा. जॉन एस सेलो मेघालय सरकार"

निदेशक, बेथानी हास्पिटल , नानग्रिम हिल्स, शिलांग

[सं. वी-11013/9/2006- एम ई ( नीति-1 ) ]

टी. जे. एस. चावला, अवर सचिव का. आ. 892.- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ( समनुषंगी बैंक ) अधिनियम 1959 की धारा 26 की उपधारा ( 2 क ) के साथ पठित धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( गक ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतदद्वारा श्री सुशील गौतम , विशेष सहायक , स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , पटियाला को स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । वह अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा विधिवत रूप से उनके उत्तराधिकारी के नियुक्त होने तक अथवा उनके स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के कर्मकार कर्मचारी बने रहने तक, जो भी पहले हो , पद पर बने रहेंगे ।

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health and Family Welfare )

New Delhi , the 19th March, 2007

[फा. सं. 15/ 7/2006- आई आर ] रमेश चन्द , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th March , 2007

S.O. 893. Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance of clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) and in consultation with the Government of Meghalaya have nominated Dr. John S. Sailo to be a member of the Medical Council of India for a period of five years with effect from the date of issue of this'notification .

S.O. 892. In pursuance of clause ( ca ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 25 read with sub- section ( 2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India ( Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Sushil Gautam , Special Assistant , State Bank of Patiala , Zonal Office , Patiala, as a Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Patiala. He will hold office for a period of three years from the date of his appointment and thereafter until his successor is appointed or till he ceases to be a workmen employce of State Bank of Patiala or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

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

[F. No. 15/7/2006 - IR]

RAMESH CHAND , Under Secy .

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

In the said notification , under the heading . 'Nominated under clause ( a ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for serial number 18 and the entries thereto , the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely:--

"18. Dr. John S. Sailo , Government of Meghalaya " (स्वास्थ्य और परिवार विभाग )

Director,

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2007

Bethany Hospital , NongrimHills. Shillong.

[No. V - 11013/9/2006- ME (Policy - I ) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 19 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 893.-केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क) के अनुसरण में और मेघालय सरकार से परामर्श करने के बाद डा. जॉन एस. सेलो इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के सदस्यों के रूप में मनोनीत किया है ।

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

का. आ. 894.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में बिहार के पंजीकृत चिकित्सा स्नातक निर्वाचन क्षेत्र में निर्वाचन करवाया है जहां से डा. नरेन्द्र प्रसाद एम एस (पटना ) , 6 , डाक्टर कालोनी कंकड़बाग , पटना को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में सर्वसम्मति से निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में , केन्द्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा भारत सरकार के उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ङ) के अधीन मनोनीत " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 18 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और 1785 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है अर्थात्:-

2. " केन्द्रीय दीपस्तंभ- सलाहकार समिति का कार्यकाल , 19फरवरी , 2007 -से आगे 06 महीने तक की अवधि तक और या नई समिति को पुनर्गठित कर दिए जाने तक में से जो भी पहले हो , तब तक बढ़ा दिया जाता है " ।

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 10 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

[फा. सं. एल एच -11016/ 1 /2005 - एस एल ] वी. पी. राणा , अवर सचिव " 10. डा. नरेन्द्र प्रसाद

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING , ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Department of Shipping) New Delhi , the 16th March, 2007 एम.एस. (पटना) , 6, डाक्टर्स कालोनी , कंकड़बाग , पटना"

[ सं. वी -11013/ 7/2006- एम ई ( नीति -1 ) ] टी. जे. एस. चावला , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th March, 2007

S.O. 895. In pursuance of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 4 of the lighthouse Act, 1927 (No. 17 of 1927 ) read with Rule 3 of the Central Advisory Committee for Lighthouses (Procedural ) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in this Ministry's Notification No. LH - 11016/1 /2005 - SLdated 16thMay,2005.

2."The tenure of the Central Advisory Committee for Lighthouses (CACL) is extended for a further period of 6months , w.e.f. 19th February, 2007 or till a new Committec isreconstituted, whichever is earlier" .

S. O. 894.-Whereas the Central Government in pursuance of clause (c ) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) has conducted the election from the Registered Medical Graduate Constituency of Bihar wherefrom Dr. Narendra Prasad, MS (Patna), 6, Doctors Colony, Kankerbagh, Patna has been elected to be a member of the Medical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

[F. No. LH- 11016/1/2005- SL ] V. P. RANA , Under Secy.

कृषि मंत्रालय ( कृषि अनुसंधान तथा शिक्षा विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 21 मार्च , 2007 Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provision of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Governmenthereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry ofHealth number S. O. 138 , dated the 9th January, 1960, namely :-

In the said notification, under the heading , 'Elected under clause ( c ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ' , for the serial No. 10 and the entries relating thereto the following serial number and entries shall be substituted , namely :- 10. Dr. Narendra Prasad ,

का. आ. 896.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , कृषि अनुसंधान एवं शिक्षा विभाग , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियमावली 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद् के राष्ट्रीय पटसन एवं समवर्गी रेशा प्रौद्योगिकी अनुसंधान संस्थान , कोलकाता जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधाक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।

MS Patna) , 6, Doctors Colony, Kankerbagh Patna"

[फा. सं. 13-2/2002- हिंदी ] देवेन्द्र कुमार छतवाल , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE [No. V- 11013/7/2006 - ME (Policy-1) ] T. J. S. CHAWLA, Under Secy .

(Department of Agricultural Research and Education) New Delhi , the 21st March, 2007 पोत परिवहन , सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय (पोत परिवहन विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2007

S.O. 896. In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language (use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rules 1976 , the Central Government , Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Agricultural Research & Education hereby notifies the National Institute of Research on Jute and Allied Fibre Technology, Kolkata of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80% .

का.आ. 895.- केन्द्रीय दीपस्तंभ- सलाहकार समिति (प्रक्रियात्मक ) नियमावली , 1976 के नियम 3 के साथ पठित दीपस्तंभ- अधिनियम , 1927 ( वर्ष 1927 के अधिनियम सं. 17 ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार , इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 16 मई , 2005 की अधिसूचना सं. एल एच -11016/ 1/2005 - एस एल में, एतद्वारा , निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ।

[F. No. 13-2/2002-Hindi ] D.K. CHHATWAL, Under Secy .

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10. 1929

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 897.- 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 उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एल्डर इन्स्ट्रूमेंट प्रा. लि. , डब्ल्यू-345 , टी टी सी इण्ड. एरिया , राबेल , नवी मुंबई -400701 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( बेबी वेइंग प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एल्डर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07/23 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचान्नित बेबी वेइंग मशीन ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 ग्राम 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 2.30 वोल्ट , और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 07 )/2007 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1787

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 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. 897. 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 (baby weighing type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " BW " series of mediem accuracy (Accuracy class III ) and with brand name "ELDER " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Elder Instruments Pvt . Ltd. , W - 345 , TTC Ind . Area , Rabale Navi Mumbai - 400 701 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/07/23;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (baby weighing type) with a maximum capacity of 20 kg . and minimum capacity of 200 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 10g . It It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent 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 the same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the rage of 100 to 10,000 for 'e ' value of 100 mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 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 ( 07 )/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1788

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

नई दिल्ली , 9 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 898.- 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 एल्डर इन्स्ट्रूमेंट प्रा. लि. , डब्ल्यू-345 , टी टी सी इण्ड. एरिया , राबेल , नवी मुंबई-400701 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( सिक्का प्रचालित व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एल्डर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07/24 समनुदेशित किया गया हैं , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्राम 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 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. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 07 ) /2007 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक, माप विज्ञान 1789

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th February, 2007

S.O. 898. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the models 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) (here in after referred to as the said Act) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument with digital indication (Coin Operated Person Weighing Machine ) of mediem accuracy (Accuracy class - III) belonging to 'PW ' series with brand name "ELDER" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Elder Instruments Pvt. Ltd. , W- 345, TTC Ind. Area, Rabale, Navi Mumbai - 400 701 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /07/24;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with the maximum capacity of 150 kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . It has a tare device with 100 percent substractive retained tare effect. The display is of Light Emitting Diode (LED) type . 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 accuracy and performance of the same series with maximum capacity in the range of 100kg to 200kg with verification scale interval (n) in the rage of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value 1 × 10k, 2x10k 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 (07)/2007] .

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1790

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 899.- 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 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 उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ऐपलेब लिमिटेड, ऐपलेब हाऊस , ए/ 5 , वागले इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , ठाणे -400604 , माहाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित ' 11222 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वेदेस- I " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07/466 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

Swades

FRONT VIEW

MODEL SWADESL - 11222

उक्त मॉडल अंकक सूचक वाला एक डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प ( बहु पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद डिस्पेंसिंग यूनिट ) है जिसमें पिस्टन प्रकार का पोजिटिव डिस्पलेसमेंट मीटर और वेट होज प्रणाली लगी हुई है । इसमें लिक्यूड क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श उपदर्शित होता है । इसका न्यूनतम डिविजन 10 मि.ली. है । इसका अधिकतम फ्लो दर 70 लि. प्रति मिनट और न्यूनतम फ्लो दर 4 ली. प्रति मिनट है । इसमें एक इलैक्ट्रो मेकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर लगा है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है । इसमें यूनिट के जरिए डिस्पेंस की गई मात्रा या मूल्य को प्रदर्शित करने के लिए प्रिसैट उपकरण लगा हुआ है । डिसचार्ज होज पाइप की लम्बाई 5 मीटर से कम 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 इसके सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , वर्किंग सिद्धांत आदि के रूप में परिवर्तन न किया जा सके ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 172 )/2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1791

भारत का राजपत्र ; मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2007

S.O. 899.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name " SWADES - I " of series " 11222 " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s . Aplab Limited, Aplab House , A/5 , Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane - 400 604, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /06/466;

The said Model is a Dispensing Pump (multi petroleum products dispensing unit) of digital indication having piston type positive displacement meter and wet- hose system . It has Liquid Crystal Display (LCD ) display. Its smallest division is 10 ml . The maximum flow rate is 70 litre per minute and minimum flow rate is 4 litre per minute . It has a Electromechanical totalizer . It operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply . It has preset device for indication of price or volume dispensed through the unit . The length of discharge hose pipe is less than 5 metres .

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 (172 )/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 931 GI /07-2 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

1792

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2007

'r का.आ. 900.- 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 उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ऐपलेब लिमिटेड , ऐपलेब हाऊस , ए/ 5 , वागले इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , ठाणे -400604 , माहाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित ' 11221 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वेदेस- I " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07 /467 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

Swades

उक्त मॉडल अंकक सूचक वाला एक डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प ( बहु पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद डिस्पेंसिंग यूनिट ) है जिसमें पिस्टन प्रकार का पोजिटिव डिस्पलेसमेंट मीटर और वेट होज प्रणाली लगी हुई है । इसमें लिक्यूड क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श उपदर्शित होता है । इसका न्यूनतम डिविजन 10 मि.ली. है । इसका अधिकतम फ्लो दर 45 लि. प्रति मिनट और न्यूनतम फ्लो दर 4 ली. प्रति मिनट है । इसमें एक इलैक्ट्रो- मेकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर लगा है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है । इसमें यूनिट के जरिए डिस्पेंस की गई मात्रा या मूल्य को प्रदर्शित करने के लिए प्रिसैट उपकरण लगा हुआ है । डिस्चार्ज होज पाइप की लम्बाई 5 मीटर से कम 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 से पूर्व या उपरांत इसके सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , वर्किंग सिद्धांत आदि के रूप में परिवर्तन न किया जा सके ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 (172 )/2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1793

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2007

S.O. 900.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name " SWADES- I " of series " 11221 " (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s. Aplab Limited, Aplab House . A/5, Wagle Industrial Estate , Thane 400 604, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/467;

The said model is a Dispensing Pump ( multi petroleum products dispensing unit) of digital indication having piston type positive displacement meter and wet -hose system. It has Liquid Crystal Display (LCD ) display . Its smallest division is 10 ml . The maximum flow rate is 45 litre per minute and minimum flow rate is 4 litre per minute . It has a Electromechanical totalizer . It operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply . It has preset device for indication of price or volume dispensed through the unit. The length of discharge hose pipe is less than 5 metres .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 172 )/2006 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

1794

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 901.- 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 वाट 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 उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ऐपलेब लिमिटेड , ऐपलेब हाऊस , ए/ 5 , वागले इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , ठाणे -400604 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित ' 11211 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचक सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वेदेस- I " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07 /468 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल अंकक सूचक वाला एक डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प ( बहु पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद डिस्पेंसिंग यूनिट ) है जिसमें पिस्टन प्रकार का पोजिटिव डिस्पलेसमेंट मीटर और वेट होज प्रणाली लगी हुई है । इसमें लिक्यूड क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श उपद‌र्शित होता है । इसका न्यूनतम डिविजन 10 मि.ली. है । इसका अधिकतम फ्लो दर 45 लि. प्रति मिनट और न्यूनतम फ्लो दर 4 ली. प्रति मिनट है । इसमें एक मैकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर लगा है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, और 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है। इसमें यूनिट के जरिए डिस्पेंस की गई मात्रा या मूल्य को प्रदर्शित करने के लिए प्रिसैट उपकरण लगा हुआ है ।

Swades

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 से पूर्व या उपरांत इसकी सामग्री , यथार्थता , डिजाइन , सर्किट डायग्राम , वर्किंग सिद्धांत आदि के रूप में कोई परिवर्तन न किया जा सके ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 172)/2006 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1795 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2007

S.O. 901. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name " SWADES - I " of series " 11211 " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s . Aplab Limited, Aplab House . A/5, Wagle Industrial Estate , Thane 400-604, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 /06/468;

The said model is a Dispensing Pump ( multi petroleum products dispensing unit) of digital indication having piston type positive displacement meter and wet-hose system . It has Liquid Crystal Display (LCD ) display. Its smallest division is 10 ml . The maximum flow rate is 45 litre per minute and minimum flow rate is 4 litre per minute . It has a mechanical totalizer . It operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply . It has present device for indication of price or volume dispensed through the unit. The length of discharge hose pipe is less than 5 meters .

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 ( 172)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 1796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10 , 1929

नई दिल्ली , 21 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 902.- 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 उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स ऐपलेब लिमिटेड , ऐपलेब हाऊस , ए/ 5 , वागले इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट , ठाणे -400604 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित ' 11212 ' श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वेदेस -1 " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/07/ 469 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

Swades

उक्त मॉडल अंकक सूचक वाला एक डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प ( बहु पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद डिस्पेसिंग यूनिट ) है जिसमें पिस्टन प्रकार का पोजिटिव डिस्पलेमेंट मीटर और वेट होज प्रणाली लगी हुई है । इसमें लिक्यूड क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श उपदर्शित होता है । इसका न्यूनतम डिविजन 10 मि.ली. है । इसका अधिकतम फ्लो दर 70 लि. प्रति मिनट और न्यूनतम फ्लो दर 4 ली . प्रति मिनट है । इसमें एक मैकेनिकल टोटेलाइजर लगा है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है। इसमें यूनिट के जरिए डिस्पेंस की गई मात्रा या मूल्य को प्रदर्शित करने के लिए प्रिसैट उपकरण लगा हुआ है । डिसचार्ज होज पाइप की लम्बाई 5 मीटर से कम 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 से पूर्व या उपरांत इसकी सामग्री, यथार्थता , डिजाइन, सर्किट डायग्राम , वर्किंग सिद्धांत आदि के रूप में कोई परिवर्तन न किया जा सके ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 172 ) /2006 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1797

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 ,1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2007

S.O. 902. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Dispensing Pump of Digital indication with brand name " SWADES- I " of series " 11212 " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/s . Aplab Limited, Aplab House . A/5, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane 400 604, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/06/469;

The saidModel is a Dispensing Pump (multi petroleum products dispensing unit) of digital indication having pistontype positive displacement meter and wet - hose system . It has Liquid Crystal Display (LCD ) display. Its smallest division is 10 ml . The maximum flow rate is 70 litre per minute and minimum flow rate is 4 litre per minute . It has a mechanical totalizer . It operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply . It has preset device for indication of price or volume dispensed through the unit. The length of discharge hose pipe is less than 5 metres.

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.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 172)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1798

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 21 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 903.- 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 माफ 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 मिडको लिमिटेड, मेट्रो एस्टेट , विध्यानगरी मार्ग , कलीना मुम्बई-400 098 द्वारा विनिर्मित " एम एम एस सुपर हैवी ड्यूटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , इलैक्ट्रो डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मिडको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/07 /36 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती 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 को शर्तों पर परिवर्तित/परिवर्धि त नहीं किया जाएगा ।

उक्तमॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रोनिक डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प है जिसमें दो पिस्टन हैं जो पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों को मापने के लिए लिनियर मोशन को रोटरी मोशन में पविर्तित करते हैं । एल ई डी प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्षित करता है । इसका प्रवाह दर 120 एल पी एम से 140 एल पी एम है । इसकी अधिकायत आयतन प्रदर्श क्षमता 9999.99 लीटर है और न्यूनतम प्रभाग 10 मि. लीटर है । आयत और मूल्य हास मापने के लिए इसमें एक आटोमेटिक रिसेट और प्रीसेट डिवाइस है । उक्त माडल में गुल्य प्रदर्शन 6 डिजिट का है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 08 )/2007 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1799

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st February, 2007

S.O. 903. 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 Electronic Dispensing Pump of digital indication with brand name "MIDCO " of " MMS SUPER HEAVY DUTY " series (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . MIDCO Limited, Metro Estate , Vidyanagari Marg , Kalina, Mumbai 400 098 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/36;

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 .

The said model is an Electronic Dispensing Pump consisting two pistons converting linear motion in to rotary motion to measure the petroleum products . The indication of the measurements are displayed on LED. The flow rate of the instrument is 120 Ipm to 140 lpm . Its maximum volume indicating capacity is 9999.99 litres and smallest division is 10 ml . It has automatic reset and preset device by volume and price . The price indicated is of 6 digits .

[F. No. WM- 21 (08 )/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 931G1/07-3 1800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 904.-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 काँटावाला सिस्टम, 108 , सिद्धेश्वर पैठ, डोका काम्पलैक्स , सोलापुर- I, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " मैट- II " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मैटटैक- आईकॉन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/06/ 227 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित टेबलटाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्राम 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 , 510 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 ( 18 )/2006 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1801 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

New Delhi , the 23rd February , 2007

S.O. 904. 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 " MAT- 11 " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class III ) and with brand name " MATTECH - ICON " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Katawala Systems , 108, Siddeshwar Peth, Doka Comples , Solapur - I , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /06 /227;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 5g . It has a tare device with 100 percent substractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) indicates the weighing results . The Instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply . In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent 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 up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value between 100mg to 2g 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 ' the value of from 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 ( 18 )/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ HAITRA 10. 1929

PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 20

का.आ. 905.- 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 हैदराबाद तुलामन लिमिटेड, बालानगर टाउनशिप , हैदराबाद -500037 द्वारा विनिर्मित सच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एच टी - जे श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुलामन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित टेबलटाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है। इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( इं ) का मान 2 ग्राम 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- धांरा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा.तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले है 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 ( 218 )/2006 ] आर. माथुरवूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1803

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd February , 2007

S.O. 905. 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 "HT - JS " series high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " TULAMAN " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Hyderabad Tulaman Limited , Balanagar Township , Hyderabad - 500 037 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/07/43;

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 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) indicate 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 the same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 1mg to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, kbeing 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 (218 )/2006 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (іі)]

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 906.- 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 हैदराबाद तुलामन लिमिटेड , बालानगर टाउनशिप , हैदराबाद -500037 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एच टी-एच एस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , स्वतः अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( हैंगिंग प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुलामन " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/42 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 ग्रा. है। सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 20 ग्राम 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 ।

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 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 । कि.ग्रा. से अधिक 500 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2× 10* या 5× 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम 21 ( 218 )/2006 ] आर. गाथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1805

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2007

S.O. 906. 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 of the self indicating non- automatic, (Hanging type) weighing instrument with digital indication of series "HT -HS " of medium accuracy (Accuracy class III ) and with brand name " TULAMAN " manufactured by M/ s . Hyderabad Tulaman Limited, Balanagar Township , Hyderabad- 500 037 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/42 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 100 kg . and minimum capacity of 400g . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 20g. It has a tare device with 100 percent substractive 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 instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 1kg and up to 500kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k, 2x10k or 5x10k , k being a 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 (218)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2008 HAITRA 10, 1929

[ PART II -SEX. 3( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 23 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 907.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत पार्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) चाट 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 को संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयत्रत सेवा प्रदान करता र

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धा ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हैदराबाद तुलामन लिमिटेड , बालानगर टाउनशिप , हैदराबाद -500037 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एच टी सी आरएस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित नोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन प्रकार के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुलामन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एसडी 09/07 :41 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है:

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित मध्यम यर्थाथतः यथार्थता वर्ग III ) का ( 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 व्यवकलात्मक धारित आधेयक 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 शर्तों पर परिवर्तित नहीं किया जाएगा ।

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की श्रारा 36 की उपधारा ( 1 ) 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, विनिमित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही संक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जां विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकारण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 500 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक एन, तक अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 ×10 , 2×10* या 5 × 10* , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पुर्णांक या शून्य के समान्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 218 )/2006 ] आर. माथुरबृथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1807

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd February, 2007

S.O. 907. 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) (hereinafter referred to as the aid Act) 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 non - automatic weighing instrument (Crane type) with digital indication of "HT-CRS " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " TULAMAN" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Hyderabad Tulaman Limited, Balanagar Township, Hyderabad- 500 037 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/07/41 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell principle based non- automatic weighing instrument (Crane type) of medium (accuracy class - III) with a maximum capacity of 10 tonne and minimum capacity of 40kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 2kg. It has a tare device with 100 percent substractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result type . 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 , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 500kg and up to 50 tonne and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g of more and with 'e ' value of 1×10k, 2x10 or 5 × 10k , k is a 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 (218 )/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 931Gl/07-4 1808

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

नई दिल्ली , 23 फरवरी , 2007

का.आ. 908.- 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 हैदराबाद तुलामन लिमिटेड , बालानगर टाउनशिप , हैद्राबाद -500037 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एच टी- टी एस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रानिक टैंक हापर/ सीलों वेईंग स्केल प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुलामन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07/40 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

0000

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित का ( अस्वचालित इलैक्ट्रानिक टैंक वेईंग हापर/सीलों स्केल प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2,5000 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है।

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 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 500 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 100 टन तक 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 ( 218 )/2006 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1809 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

New Delhi , the 23rd February,2007

S.O. 908.-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 ( Tank/Hooper /Silo Weighing type) with digital indication of "HT- TS " series medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " TULAMAN" (herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s . Hyderabad Tulaman Limited, Balanagar Township , Hyderabad- 500 037 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/40;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument ( Tank /Hopper/ Silo weighing type) with a maximm capacity of 25000kg . The verification scale interval ' e ' is 10kg . 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.

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 between 500kg and upto 100 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 with ' e' value of the form 1x10%, 2× 10k or 5× 10k, 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 (218)/2006]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

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

नई दिल्ली , 9 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 909.- 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 कैस वेइंग इंडिया प्रा . लि.. 568 , उद्योग विहार, फेज -5 , गुड़गांव , हरियाणा-122016 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " पी ओ स्केल " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेनलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कैस " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चाद उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 07 /69 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( अस्वचालित टेबलटाप प्रकार का) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हटर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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 उनी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिमित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा . से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " डं " मान 1 × 10 % , 2× 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 13 )/2007 ] आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1811

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th March, 2007

S.O. 909. 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 Standard 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 "POScale " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " CAS " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . CAS Weighing India Pvt . Ltd. 568 , Udyog Vihar , Phase -V, Gurgaon , Haryana- 122016 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/69 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop Type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 50g . The verification scale interval (e) is 1g. It has a tare devicewith a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Diode (LCD ) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts, and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Inaddition 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 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 1mg to 50mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for 'e' value of 100mg or more and with ' e' value of 1 ×10k, 2× 10k 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 ( 13 )/2007]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 1812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 910.- 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 राजस्थान मेटल स्मेल्टिंग कं. , डी-80 , रोड नं.7 , वी के आई एरिया , जयपुर 302013 , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- IV ) वाले " आर एम " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबुलर बैलेंस मैकेनिकल टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आर एम एस सी ओ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/07/88 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल स्प्रिंग आधारित तोलन उपकरण है जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापान मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है। माप के परिणाम डायल द्वारा उपदर्शित है।

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 5ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1× 10 % , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 14 ) /2007 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1813

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 13th March, 2007

S.O. 910. 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 Standard 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, theCentral Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication (Tabular Balance - Mechanical Type ) of " RM" series of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class - IV) and with brand name " RMSCO " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Rajasthan Metal Smelting Co. , D - 80, Road No. 7, VKI Area, Jaipur- 302013, Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/07/88 ;

The said model is a spring based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 15kg and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . The result of measurement is indicated by a dial .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1× 10k , 2 × 10k 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 ( 14)/2007 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 1814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 911.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि 1

875 ( भाग 2 ) : 1987

1, दिसम्बर , 2006

31 दिसम्बर , 2006 2.

875 ( भाग 5) : 1987

1, दिसम्बर , 2006

31दिसम्बर , 2006 इस संशोधन की प्रति 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 तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) ( BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi , the 13th March, 2007

S.O.911 .-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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

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

No. and year of the amendment Date from which the amend- ment shall have effect 1

875 (Part 2) : 1987

No. 1 , December , 2006

31 December , 2006 2 . 875 (Part 5) : 1987

No. 1 , December , 2006

31December , 2006 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. CED/Gazette]

A. K. SAINI , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Civil Engg .)

नई दिल्ली , 13 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 912.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

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

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

क्रम संख्या

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

दिसम्बर , 2006 1. आईएस 6094 ( भाग 4 ): 2006/आईएसओ 4029 :2003 षटकोणी सॉकेट सेट पेंच भाग 4 कप प्वाइंट वाले (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण) भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1815 इन भारतीय मानकों 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 तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीजीडी/जी -3.5 ] पी. सी. जोशी , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( पीजीडी)

NewDelhi , the 13th March, 2007

: S.O.912. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

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

1. IS6094 (Part 4) : 2006/ISO 4029:2003 Hexagon socket set screws- Part 4 With cup point (Third Revision)

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

4 3

December, 2006 Copy of these 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, Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. PGD/G-3.5] P. G. JOSHI, Scientist ' E ' & Head (PGD)

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 913.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 , के विनियम 4 के उप विनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं को लाइसेंस प्रदान किए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस वैद्यता

पार्टी का नाम एवं पता ( कारखाना)

क्रम सं. संख्या

टेक्नोफ्लेक्स केबल्स, 1. 7706479 07-02-2008

इ/1 , सिंगते कम्पाऊंड , कोकनीपाडा,

दहिसर ( पूर्व ) , मुम्बई-400068

प्रिसीजन इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स , 2. 7702875 01-02-2008

यूनिट संख्या 51 , 28 और 29 ए से झेड तक इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , जी के मार्ग , लोअर परेल ,

मुम्बई-400013 931Gl/07-5

उत्पाद

आई एस सं./भाग/खण्ड वर्ष

6 5

694 : 1990 1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी वोल्टता के

: लिए पीवीसी रोधित केबल

14220:1994 खुले कुएं के लिए

निमज्जय पम्पसेट THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

1816

14-02-2008

3. 7709687

अपार इण्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, प्लॉट सं. 18 , टी टी सी , एम आय डी सी इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , थाने बेलापूर रोड , रबाले , थाने-400701

25-02-2008

4. 7712272

पुखराज इण्डस्ट्रीज , 4, मदानी इस्टेट , फेमस टिंबर हाऊस के पीछे , मुलुंड गोरेगाँव लिंक रोड , सोनापुर , भांडुप ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई-400078

05-02-2008

5. 7704475

कोनिका अप्लाएंसेस, शांति इस्टेट; गाला सं. 1/1 - ए, चिंचोटी कमन रोड , साग पाडा , जिला ठाणे-401208 31-01-2008

6. 7703170

युनिटी इण्डस्ट्रीज , रूम नं. 5 , शांता निवास , जी ए लिंक रोड, साकीनाका , मुम्बई -400072

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

6 5

12463: 1988 निरोधकारी विद्युतरोधन खनिज तेल

4250: 1980 बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य मिक्सर ( द्रवीपरक और ग्राइन्डर )

[सं. के. प्र. वि. 13:11 ] एस. के. चौधरी , उपमहानिदेशक ( प्रमाणन )

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2007

S.O. 913.- In pursuancemance of sub - regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of India (Certification ) Regulations , 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence of which are given below in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE Validity Date

Name and Address ( factory ) of the Party

Sl . No.

Licence No.

07-02-2008

1. 7706479

Technoflex Cables E/1, Singte Compound , Koknipada Dahisar -e , Mumbai -400068 01-02-2008

2. 7702875

Precision Engineering Works , Unit No. 51 , 28 & 29 , A to Z Industrial Estate , G. K. Marg , Lower Parel , Mumbai -400013 14-02-2008

3. 7709687

Apar Industries Ltd. Plot No. 18 , TTC MIDC Industrial Area, Thanc Belapur Road , Rabale , Thane -400701

4. 7712272 25-02-2008 Pukhraj Industries 4.Madani Estate , Behind Famous Timber House . Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Sonapur Bhandup -W Mumbai -400078 Product

IS No./Part/ Sec. Year

6 5

694:1990 PVC Insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100V

14220: 1994 Openwell Submersible pumpsets

12463: 1988 Inhibited mineral insulating oils

4250:1980 Specification for Domestic Electric Food- Mixers (Liquidizes and Grinders) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

4 2

5. 7704475 05-02-2008 Konica Appliances

Santi Estate, Gala No. 1/ 1 -A, Chinchoti Kaman Road, Sag Pada, Dist Thane -401208

31-01-2008

6. 7703170

Unity Industries Room No. 5, Santa Niwas , G. A. Link Road, Greater Bombay, Sakinaka, Maharashtra-400072

1817

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

4250:1980 Specification for Domestic Electric Food-Mixers (Liquidizes and Grinders)

[No. CMD-13: 11 ] S. K. CHAUDHURI, Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च, 2007

का. आ. 914.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये है :

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

1. आईएस 15756 : 2007/आईएसओ 10275 : 1993- धातुओं कीचद्दर एवं पत्ती टेन्साइल स्ट्रेन हाईनिंग एक्सपोनेंट को ज्ञात करना

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

31जनवरी , 2007 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानकों 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 तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एमटीडी 3/टी-103] डॉ. ( श्रीमति ) स्नेह भाटला , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख (एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2007

S.O. 914. 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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

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

1. IS15756: 2007/ISO 10275:1993 MetallicMaterials-Sheet and Strip -Determination or Tensile Strain Hardening Exponent

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

4 3

31January, 2007 1818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Copy of these Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MTD 3/T- 103 ]

Dr. (Mrs.) SNEH BHATLA , Scientist 'F' & Head (Met Engg. )

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 915.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

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

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

संख्या

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

4 I. आई एस 1258: 2005 बेयोनेट लैम्पहोल्डर/चौथा पुनरीक्षण

1 जुलाई , 2007 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. ईटी 23/टी-4 ]

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

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2007

S.O.915 . in pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the luhan Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

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

No. and year of Indian Amendment

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect 1

4 1. IS 1258 : 2005 /Bayonet Lampholders

(Fourth Revision)

1July, 2007 Copies of this Amendment are is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. ET23/T- 4]

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist ' F ' & Head (Elect. Tech . ) 1819

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 916.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

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

4 2

1 जून , 2007 आईएस 2215: 2006 प्रतिदीप्त लैम्प के स्टार्टर (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[सं. ईटी 23/टी-14]

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

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2007

S.O. 916. 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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

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

No. and year of the Amendment

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

1 2

1 June, 2007 1. IS 2215 : 2006 Starters for Fluorescent Lamp (Third Revision)

Copies ofthis Amendment are is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. ET23/T- 14]

P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist 'F ' & Head (Elect. Tech.)

नई दिल्ली, 20 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 917.- भारतीय भानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड (ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: - [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

1 जुलाई , 2007 1. आईएस 1293 : 2005 250 वोल्ट तक की रेटित वोल्टता वाले और 16 एम्पीयर तक की रेटित करंट वाले प्लग और सॉकेट निकास की विशिष्ट ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[सं. ईटी 14/टी-05 ]

पी. के. मुखर्जी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) New Delhi , the 20th March , 2007

S.O. 917. 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 Standard , particulars of which are given in the Schedule produced below, have been superseded/ withdrawn on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Date of superseded/ withdrawn

No. and year of the Indian Standards Established

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

1July, 2007

IS 1293 : 2005 Plugs and Socket-Outlets of Rated Voltage up to and Including 250 Volts and Rated Current up to and Including 16 Amperes - Speci- ficationLamp ( Third Revision)

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

[No. ET 14/T-05]

P. K. MUKHERJEE , Scientist ' F ' & Head (Elect . Tech.)

नई दिल्ली, 23 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 918.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे वापस ले लिये गए हैं : - 1821

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अनुसूची

वापिस लेने की

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

तिथि क्रम संख्या

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

मार्च , 2007

आईएस/आईएसओ 105- ए. 2:1993

1. आईएस 768: 1982 रंग में बदलाव की जाँच करने की पद्धति ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मार्च, 2007

आईएस/आईएसओ 105- ए, 3:1993

2. आईएस 769: 1982 स्टेनिंग जाँच करने की पद्धति (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

मार्च , 2007

आईएस/आईएसओ 105- ए. 1 :1994

3. आईएस 10251 : 1982 वस्त्रादि पर रंगों का पक्कापन ज्ञात करने के सामान्य सिद्धांत

अब ये भारतीय मानक बिक्री के लिये उपलब्ध नहीं होगी ।

[सं. टीएक्सडी/जी-25 ]

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

New Delhi , the 23rd March, 2007

S.O. 918. 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 Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

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

Established

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

March, 2007

IS/ISO 105- A02: 1993

1. IS 768: 1982 Method for evaluating change in colour (First Revision)

March, 2007

IS/ISO 105- A03 : 1993

2. IS 769 : 1982 Method for evaluating , staining (FirstRevision)

March, 2007

IS/ISO 105- A01 : 1994

3. IS 10251 : 1982 General principles oftesting textiles for colour fastness tests

Heneeforth, these standards will not available for sale .

[No. TXD/G-25]

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

नई दिल्ली, 26 मार्च , 2007

का. आ. 919.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: - 1822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) )

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

आईएस 3196 ( भाग 1 ) : 02अप्रैल, 2007 1. आईएस 3196 ( भाग 1 ) : 2006 अल्प दाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 लिटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर भाग । द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस ( एल पी जी ) के लिए सिलिंडर की विशिष्टि ( पॉचवां पुनरीक्षण )

1992 अल्प दाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 लीटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर भाग । द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस ( एलपीजी ) के लिए सिलिंडर की विशिष्टि ( चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

28फरवरी , 2007 2. आईएस 15729 : 2007 प्राकृतिक गैस दाब रेगुलाटंग और मीटरिंग टर्मिनल-रीति संहिता

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहार 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 तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एमईडी/जी-2: 1 ]

सी. वेदा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग ) New Delhi , the 26th March . 2007

S.O.919.-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 hercto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

Date of Established

No. and year of Indian

No. and year of the Indian Standards Established

Standards , of any. Superseded by the New Indian Standard

02April , 2007

IS 3196 (Part 1 ) : 2006 Welded low carbon steel cylinders exceeding 5 litre water capacity for low pressure liqucfiable gases Part 1 Cylinders for liquefied petroleum gases ( LPG) --- Specification (Fifth revision)

IS 3196 ( Part 1 ) : 1992 Welded low carbon steel eylinders exceeding inre water capacity for low pressure liquefiable gases Parti Cylinders for liquefied petroleum gases LPG (Fourth Revision ) .

28 February , 2007 2. IS 15729 : 2007 Natural Gas pressure regulating and meteringterminal- Code ofPractice

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

[No. MED/G- 2 : 1 ]

C. K. VELA. Scientist ' F ' & Head ( Mechanical Engineering) 1823

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

जिला तहसील गाँव

सर्वे संख्या आर.ओ.यू.

नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2007

के लिए

अर्जित क्षे.

(हैक्ट, में)

0.11.0

260.14

53 वलंन्थरवई

रमनाड रमनाड

0.00.5

268-2डी

0.07.0

268-2ई

268-7 0.03.0

268-8 0.03.0

268-10 0.05.5 का.आ. 920.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि मैं उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 4302 तारीख 09-11-2005 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से. संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य में पेरून्गुलम टी.एन.ई. बी. से कोरामण्डल लिमिटेड पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का -अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

268-14बी 0.07.5

0.03.5

267-4बी और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 30-01-2006 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

267-5ए 0.04.0

0,45.0

योग

और पाइपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुए;

[फा. सं. एल-14014/26/05- जी.पी. ]

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

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 30th March, 2007 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पर पाइपलाईनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित हैं , उस मैं उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विभिश्चर्य किया है;

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

S.O. 920. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 4302 dated 09-11-2005 issued under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of natural gas through Perungulam TNEB to Coramandel Ltd. Pipeline project in the State of Tamilnadu by the GAIL (India) Limited;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 30-01-2006.

And whereas no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;

And whereas the Competent Authority has , under Sub -section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its reportto the Central Government.

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपध ारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , पाइपलाईनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार , इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

931G1/07-6 1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report , decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And, further , in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication ofthe declaration , in the GAIL ( India ) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District Tehsil Village Survey No.

Arca to be acquired for ROU (inHect.) 1

Ramnad Ramnad

260-14 0.11.0

53. Valan- tharavai 268-2D 0.00.5

268-2E 0.07.0

268-7 0.03.0

268-8 0.03.0

268-10 0.05.5

268-148 0.07.5

267-4B 0.03.5

267-5A 0.04.0

जिला

0.45.0

Total

File No. L -14014/26/05-G.P. ] S.B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

बारां नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 921.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 3631 तारीख 07-9-2006 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा राजस्थान राज्य में विजयपुर कोटा एवं स्पर पाइपलाईन परियोजना के

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 04-12-2006 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और पाइपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से कोई आक्षेप प्राप्त नहीं हुए;

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

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाईन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित हैं, उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है:

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

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाईनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, पाइपलाईनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल (इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार , इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील गाँव

सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.

अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्र (हैक्ट. में)

5 अन्ता

233

तामखेडा

0.0540

255

0.1175

253

0.1960

263

0.2448

264

0.0725

269

0.0186

270

0.2016 1825

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

बारां

282

0.1608

अन्ता तामखेडा

Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

285

0.0632

286

0.0724

योग 1,2014

काचरी

351

0.1752

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , insteadof vesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication of the declaration , in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

350

0.1041

SCHEDULE

0.2112

348

District Tehsil Village Survey No.

0.0192

348/428

Area to be acquired for ROU (inHect.)

0.0288

333/425

0,5385

योग

Tamkheda 233

0.0540

Anta

Baran

[फा. सं. एल-14014/ 16/06- जी.पी. ( भाग- II ) ]

0.1175

255

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

0.1960

253

0.2448

263

NewDelhi , the 30th March, 2007

0.0725

264

0.0186

269

0.2016

270

0.1608

282

0.0632

285

0.0724

286

S.O. 921. Whereas by Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3631 dated 7-9-2006 issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for purpose of laying pipeline for transport of natural gas through Vijaipur- Kota and its spur pipeline in the State of Rajasthan by the GAIL (India) Limited;

1.2014

Total

0.1752

351

Kachari

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the public on or before 04-12-2006 .

0.1041

350

And whereas no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline;

0.2112

348

0.0192

348/428 And whereas the Competent Authority has , under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government.

0.0288

333/425

0.5385

Total And whereas the Central Government has, after considering the said report , decided to acquire the Right of User in the lands specified in the Schedule;

[File No. L- 14014/ 16/06-G.P. (Part - II) ]

S.B. MANDAL , Under Secy .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central 1826

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

पेट्रोलियम ओर प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2007

का. आ . 922.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को , लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उड़ीसा राज्य पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दीया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की ऐसी भुमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसुचना से संबंधित अनुसूची में वर्णित है , में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए !

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भुगि में हितबध्द है , उस तारीख से जिसको राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन या भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के विरोध में श्री . सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया कृड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग हाउसिंग कॉम्पलेक्स मेघदम्बारा , डाकघर कुरुदा, बालासोर- 756056 ( उड़ीसा) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिल्हाः केद्रपाडा

राज्य: उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

तहसील का नाम गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

763

महाकालपाडा

मलाडीहि

762

बरडंग

497

1425

508

528

529

496

235

खोलानई

52/367

बंधपाडा

42 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4 1

407

बाटिपाडा

पटटामुन्डाई

761

सतकुडिया

566

चेडिया

101

बुहाळ

798

459

462

463

439

बन्तो

1271

अन्धारूआ

19.

1580

मालीपुर

1588

2436

डामरपुर

2424

2683

पालपाटना

399

औल

अलिहा

704

857

2387

मोहासानी

1827 5

1247/2765 00

2580

2414

1215

1138

990

1226/2771 00

1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

2415

2517

2514

2417

2402

2572

2570

2885

2925

2224

1249

1227

1140

1216

532

चन्डियागड़ी

795

शितलेश्वर

नियाल

1459

2456

1846

तुन्गा

1864

1410

1371

1710

1711

1712

1723

1081

906

647

1448

1449/1537 00

646

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5

[फा. सं. आर-25011/12/2004- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 1829

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2007

S. O. 922.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land 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 under the land to Shri . Sukanta Kumar Pradhan , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip Haldia Pipeline Project , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Housing Complex , Meghadambaru , Post office- Kuruda , Balasore (Orissa) .

Schedule

State : Orissa District : Kendrapara

Area

Khasra No.

Name of Tehsil

Nameof Village

Sq . mtr.

Are

Hectare

763

Maladihi

Mahakalpada

762

497

Baradang

1425

508

528

529

496

235

Kholanai

52/367

Bandhapara 1830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1

407

Batipara

Pattamundai

Satkudia

761

566

Chadeya

Buhal

101

798

459

462

463

439

Banto

1271

Andharua

Malipur

1580

1588

Damarpur

2436

2424

Palpatna 2683

Aul

Aliha

399

704

857

Mahasani

2387

1247/2765 00

2580

2414

1215

1138

990

1226/2771

2415

40 1831

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2517

2514

2417

2402

2572

2570

2885

2925

2224

1249

1227

1140

1216

532

Chandiagadi

Sitleswar

795

Nial

1459

2456

1846

Tunga

1864

1410

1371

1710

1711

1712

1723

1081

906

647

1448

1449/1537 00

646

[F. No. R -25011 /12/2004- O.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

931Gl/07-7 1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च, 2007

का. आ. 923.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार काअर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गयी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 4414 , तारीख 13 नबम्बर , 2006 द्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनालि कि रिफैनेरी से मीनम्वाक्कम एयरपौर्ट तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एवीऐशन टबीईन फ्युयल ( ए टि एफ् ) पाइपलाइन बिछानें के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 11.12.2006 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना चाहिए ।

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

यह और कि केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त हो कर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1833

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

अनुसूची

तालूका: श्रीपेरुम्बुदूर

राज्य : तामिलनाडु

जिला: कांचीपुरम

गाँव कानाम " सर्वेक्षण सं - खण्ड से उप-खण्ड से.

427

53, वलारपुरम

अ

437

438.

439

1अ

435

440

445

444

2अ1 अ

444

57, इरुन्गाटटुकोटटाइ

2अ

2ब

231अ

1-1

11-

8 क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर

वर्ग मिटर

एयर

6 0

66 0

05 0

24 0

92 0

66 0

40 0

59 0

50 0

89 0

98 0

28 0

15 0

27 0

62 0

40 0

59 0

69 0

40 0

75 0

32 0

27 0

19 0

90 0

59 0

90 0

47 0

14 0

19 0

90 0

88 0

91 0

50 1834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

12अ

12ब

201

210

14अ

211

199

198

218

8अ1 अ

218

8अ1 क

218

833

219

1अ 1

1अ2

219

186

331

186

333

186

3ब

186

3क

348

347

354

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

40 0

29 0

1 4 4

75 1835

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

354

355

13अ

355

13ब

355

356

357

3अ

357

56, काटरम्वक्कम

3क1

--12356

86 0

80 0

00 0

60 0

94 0

40 0

24 0

3 3503

40 0

67 0

042 3

37 0

53 0

80 0

23 0

80 0

58 0

07 0

74 0 1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

109

118

121

3567

121

12अ

121

13अ

121

13क

129

183

184

6क

184

181

1अ

181

1 ब

181

2अ

181

2ब

181

2क

181

192

193

1अ

193

1 ब

193

175

1 ब

196

2अ

197

199

198

1अ

198

2अ

207

3अ

207

3क

207

209

1अ

209

1 ब

209

5अ

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( i) ) 4

6 0

79 0

66 0

72 0

16 0

72 0

47 0

73 0

24 0

44 0

74 0

40 0

84 0

80 0

83 0

78 0

37 0

80 0

56 0

40 0

68 0

42 0

84 0

43 0

03 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र10, 1929

211

1अ 1

211

1अ2

216

3अ 1 अ

3अ 1 ब

216

3ब2

217

1अ1

217

290

1अ1 अ

1ब

290

1क

1ड

290

1इ

290

288

131

333

332

1ब

334

1अ5

334

1अ6

334

1अ7

1अ8

334

1अ9

334

1अ10

1311

334

1312

334

1अ15

334

1अ14

334

1अ1 क

334

1अ4

334

1अ16

334

131.7

334

1ड

334

131अ

1अ 1

338

1क

338

1অ

338

1837

6 0

82 0

41 0

13 0

40 0

38 0

98 0

22 0

63 0

16 0

56 0

00 0

40 0 .

95 0

83 0

00 0

30 0

10 0

40 0

30 0

40 0

43 0

81 0

82 0

90 0

62 0

0 1838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

338

1अ2

338

1अक

338

1अड

338

1अइ

338

335

1 एल्

335

1जे

1के

335

1अ 5

335

1अ4

335

329

328

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

6 0

90 0

35 0

00 0

40 0

90 0

17 0

81 0

54 0

40 0

45 0

72 0

90 0

22 0

40 0

42 0

40 0

08 0

41 0

51 0

57 0

33 0

15 0

76 0

40 0

44 0

72 0

47 0

75 0

40 0

43 0

59 0

28 0

40 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

328

1जे

328

1आइ

328

1एच्

1जी

328

1एफ्

328

1अ

328

106

1एम् 60, पुदुपाइर

107

1क

108

1ड

108

1क

931GI/07-8

1839

50 0

92 0

22 0

56 0

40 0

52 0

79 0

40 0

01 0

40 0

78 0

1005

12 ১০

70 0

87 0

94 0

15 0

84 0

40 0

14 0

24 0

40 0

65 1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

2 ब

2क

2अ

3अ

1अ

1 ब

8अ

४ब

9 ब

9क

12अ

12 ब

13अ

13 ब

6ब

6क

6ड

1क

2ब 1 अ

2ब1 ब

264

640

3 61 , नन्दाम्वक्कम

659

641

657

1अ 1

657

1अ2

657

1 इ

656

1अ 1 अ

656

647

10अ2

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

6 0

94 0

00 0

71 0

53 0

45 0

44 0

89 0

09 0

14 0

75 0

89 0

83 0

86 0

54 0

90 0

99 0

48 0

16 0

02 0

38 0

40 0

81 0

20 0

63 0

36 0

26 0

00 0

72 0

20 0

50 0

16 0

17 0

78 0

89 1841

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

10अ 1

647

8अ

647

8ब

647

7ब

647

7अ1 अ

647

6ब

647

5अ1

647

4अ1

647

3अ

647

1ब

647

1अ

647

10अ 1

648

649

1अ

635

1 ब

635

2ब5

635

2ब4

635

2ब 3

635

2ब2

635

2क1

635

633

1अ4

1 ब

633

7ब

505

40 0

18 0

41 0

82 0

40 0

08 0

56 0

68 0

77 0

30 0

54 0 1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929

501

503

502

495

496

2 ब

2अ

496

1 व

497

2अ

497

1अ

1 ब

497

488

491

490

489

466

465

462

180

3अ

180

3ब

198

201

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

326

327

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

16 0

40 0

15 0

25 0

06 0

40 0

95 0

86 0

83 0

65 0

88 0

58 0

80 0

40 0

21 0

78 0

99 0

10 0

23 0

49 0

93 0

12 0

24 0

40 0

12 0

96 0

70 0

40 0

74 0

10 0

40 0

40 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

327

4म

327

4अ

127

$28

216

325

292

293

288

223

229

283

232

272

235

2ब

273

270

239

240

238

242

243

244

241

246

247

6अ

2अ

2ब

1अ

1843

6 4

50 0

80 0

53 0

76 0 09- 0 9

24 0

40 0

70 0

40 0

8 00080

41 0

97 0

17 0

40 0

77 0

27 0

40 0

84 0

20 1844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

97, पुन्थाडालाम

243

147

63, सिरुकालातुर

139

118

116

119

120

113

124

125

-2

92, तिरुमुडिवक्कम

995

91, कुन्नातुर

995

2अ

994

1 अ

994

1 ब

989

990

991

1ब

991

978

974

972

231

972

2ब1

968

2अ

968

2 ब

968

1अ 1

968

1अ2

955

935

1अ1

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

6 0

58 0

22 000

32 0

27 0

03 0

40 0

51 0

40 0

54 0

58 0

76 C

54 ง

000

26 0

90 0

28 0

99 0

46 0

52 0

17 0

93 0

06 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

-3

1 ब

935

1क

935

1 एफ

935

937

1अ

938

4अ

939

1अ 1

906

1अ2

906

141

906

143

906

2क

906

889

890

888

877

878

820

821

822

827

823

825

824

786

787

788

781

780

779

771

770

756

1845

6 4

41 0

00 0

43 0.

89 0

93 0

02 0

55 0

2942

40 0

82 0

85 0

91 0

95 0

0 1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

755

601

604

606

593

592

2अ 1

577

1अ

577

1 ब

569

568

1अ

560

549

1अ9

549

1वाइ

1जेड

549

1अ 1 अ

549

1पि

549

1क्यु

549

1अ

494

1 ब

494

1अ

496

1 अ

497

483

1 ब

484

478

468

462

131

130

127

126

129

1क

116

117

118

111

3ब 1

111

3ब2

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

6 0

88 0

70 0

79 0

36 0

01 0

40 0

31 0

84 0

18 0

40 0

29 0

40 0

43 0

21 0

94 0

64 0

02 0

84 0

19 0

32 0

40 0

82 0

50 0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

110

108

2अ

2अ 1

2अ2

2अ3

2क

1.1

2ब

1379

3ब

411

1379

3अ

4अ3

1379

4अ2

1379

434

1379

216

82, रेन्डांकटलाइ

215

209

208

206

अ

205

151

146

143

142

136

135

1 घ

120

119

105

118

117

1अ

117

121

1म 931 GI/07-ه

1847 4

27 0

54 0

40 0

25 0

84 0

54 0

40 0

48 0

05 0

25 0

84 0

69 0

89 0

78 0

06 0

89 0

40 0

97 0

03 0

89 0

03 0

29 0

98 0

80 0

41 0

22 1848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10,1929

115

212

81 , ताराप्पक्कम

211

1अ

211

1 ब

211

2अ

211

2ब 1

210

1अ

210

1 ब

209

208

207

225

1अ

225

1 ब

225

203

202

226

1अ

226

1अ 1

226

1ब2

236

239

238

240

282

280

279

284

269

268

267

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

6 0

91 0

40 0

53 0

36 0

11 0

89 0

64 0

79 0

52 0

40 0

35 0

95 0

47 0

68 0

75 0

98 0

71 0

30 0

88 0

52 0

98 0

49 0

13 0

39 0

40 0

96 0

80 0

00 0

63 0

30 0

68 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

1849

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

112

613

80, केराँप्पक्कम

534

609

112-

611

617

607

620

625

628

629

630

3122--1

646

649

---

650

651

653

652

657

2--12

656

694

697

711

712

714

-12-

1क

715

719

718

722

726

724

6 4

36 0

54 0

47 0

31 0

40 0

52 0

43 0

00 0

37 0

15.

76 0

48 0

14.

03 0

93 0

40 0

23 0

96 0

65 0

96 0

76 0

57 0

68 0

54 0

12 0

68 0

1 1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

725

402

79,कोलाप्पक्कम

403

2ब

403

348

2अ

348

2क

348

1अ

346

1 ब

346

349

350

351

345

1अ

343

1ब

343

352

342

339

338

337

2क

336

2अ

336

2ब

336

2ड

336

2ब

333

2अ

333

2क

333

2अ

331

323

2अ

321

1 क

322

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

6 4

26 0

80 0

60 0

94 0

79 0

39 0

33 0

36 0

97 0

56 0

13 0

58 0

64 0

32 0

00 0

[फा. सं. आर-25011/ 11/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस . के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 1851 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31: 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

NewDelhi , the 29th March , 2007

S. O. 923-Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.4414 dated the 13th November , 2006 issued under sub section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land ) Act 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , ( herein after reffered to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF) petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Meenammbakkam Airport in the State of Tamil Nadu , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public from: 11.12.2006 .

And whereas , the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 ofthe said Act has submitted his report to the Central Governmetnt;

And whereas, the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

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

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

1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

SCHEDULE Taluk: SRIPERUMBUDUR District: KANCHEEPURAM

Survey No. Subdivision No.

Name of the Village

427

53, Valarpuram

437

A123

438

439

435

440

445

444

2A1A

444

2 57, Irrungattukottai

2A1A

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] State: TAMILNADU

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq. Mtr.

6 4

05 0

24 0

66 0

40 0

59 0

50 0

98 0

15 0

27 0

62 0

40 0

59 0

69 0

37 0

75 0

27 0

19 0

90 0

59 0

90 0

47 0

14 0

19 0

90 0

88 0

91 0

50 185:

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

12A

12B

201

14A

210

211

199

198

218

8A1A

218

8A1C

218

8A3

219

1A1

219

1A2

186

3A1

186

3A3

186

348

347

354

45:

75 1854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

354

355

13A

355

13B

356

357

56, Katrambakkam

3C1

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

74 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र10, 1929

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

109

118.

121

12A

121

13A

121

13C

121

129

183

184

181

181.

181

192

193

175

196

197

199

198

207

209

5A 931G1 /07-10

1855 4

59, 0

5 1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

3 1

1A1

211

1A2

216

3A1A

216

3A1B

216

3B1

216

3B2

217

1A1

217

290

1A1A

290

288

1A1

333

332

334

1A5

334

1A6

1A7

334

1A8

1A9

334

1A10

334

1A12

334

1A15

334

1A14

334

1A1C

334

1A4

334

1A16

334

1A17

334

1A1A

338

1A1

338

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

56 0

00 .

30 0

10 0

75 0

40 0

40-

43 0

40 0

82 0

30 0

62 0

40 0

0 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

338

1A2

338

1AC

338

1AD

338

1AE

338

335

1A5

335

1A4

335

329

328

1857

08 0

41 0

51 0

81 0

33 0

15 0

76 0

44 0

72 0

75 0

43 0

59 0

40 1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

328

106

1M 60, Puduppair

107

108

1D_

108

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

65 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

12A

12B

13A

13B

49.

2B1A

2B1B

284

6 61 , Nandambakkam

640

659

641

657

1A1

657

1A2

657

656

1A1A

656

647

10A2

1859 4

13 45

89 1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

3 1

647

10A1

647

7A1A

647

5A1

647

4A1

647

648

10B1

649

635

2-1

635

2B5

635

2B4

635

2B3

635

2B2

635

2C1

633

1A4

633

505

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ії)]

54 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

501

503

502

495

496

497

488

491

490

489

466

465

462

180

198

25 2

201

199

200

203

204

205

206

207

326

327

1861

40 0

25 12

40 0

95 0

88 0

06 0

80 0

96 0

10 0

93 0

60 0

93 0

54 0

12 0

10 0

40 0

40 0 1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

327

328

216

325

292

293

288

223

229

283

232

272

235

273

270

239

240

238

242

243

244

241

246

247

-2 2

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

20 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1863

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

3 1

243

97, Poonthandalam

147

63 , Sirukalathur

139

118

116

119

120

113

124

125

1 92, Thirumudivakkam

995

91 , Kunnathur

995

994

989

990

991

978

974

972

2A1

972

2B1

968

1A1

968

1A2

955

935

1A1 931 G1/07-11

0 306 6

06 1864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

935

937

2A1

937

2A2

938

939

906

1A1

906

1A2

906

1B1

906

1B2

906

1B3

906

889

890 .

888

877

878

820

821

82.2

822

827

823

825

824

786

787

788

781

780

779

771

770

756

1A1

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

74 भारत काराजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) )

755

601

604-

606

593

592

2A1

592

577

569

568

560

1A9

549

1A1A

549

494

496

497

483

484

478

468

462

131

130

127

126

129

116

117

118

111

3B1

111

3B2

1865

47 0

19 0

66 0

29 0

50 0

82 0

30 0

13 0

14 0

50 1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

110

108

2A1

2A2

2A3

1379

4A1

1379

4A3

1379

4A2

1379

4A4

1379

6A1

8 82, Rendankattalai

216

215

209

208

206

205

151

146

143

142

136

135

120

119

105

118

117

121

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

54 0

22 1867

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

115

212

81, Tharappakkam

211

2B1

211

210

209

208

207

225

203

202

226

1B1

226

1B2

236

239

238

240

282

280

279

284

269

268

267

1 4

91,

112042

0067 6 7

15 98

68 1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

613

80 , Kerugampakkam

534

112

609

611

617

607

620

625

628

629

630

646

649

650

651

653

652

657

656

694

697

711

712

714

715

719

718

722

726

724

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

9951

07 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

725

402

79, Kolappakkam

403

348

2B2

348

346

349

350

351

345

343

352

342

339

338

337

336

333

331

323

321

322

1869

24 0

44 0

26 0

58 0

98 0

00 !

[F. No. R -25011/11 /2006-O.R. -I ] S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

1870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च, 2007

का. आ. 924.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को, लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उड़ीसा राज्य पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दीया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भुमि में हिशबध्द है , उस तारीख से जिसको राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन या भूमिके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के विरोध में श्री. सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग हाउसिंग कॉम्पलेक्स मेघदम्बारा , डाकघर कुरुदा , बालासोर- 756056 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: उड़ीसा

जिल्हाः भद्रक

गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल

तहसील का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

चान्दबाली

297

कान्ड़ीआसाही

1054

307

309

291

342

डिओबिल

376

मुल्काईमा

372

373

534

92 1871

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

525

790

528

1899

सानसिंगपुर

146

बरासिंगपुर

3132

माधापुर

3123

3126

3107

3133

3124

1736

घाटपुर

5000

2114

2516

2515

4767

4753

3217

3129

3003

2800

2514

2529

2427

2124

1918

1921

265

1144/1767

सान्तरापुर:

1671

1669

तिहीडी

भानूपुर

194

412

कान्हूपुर

404

358

931GI /07-12 1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

सन्डकपुर

1194

कबीरपुर

1115

527

जाफराबाद

526

513

483

482

327

479

521

268

नहुनीपाल

263

266

262

234

162

168

167

166

264

34 बासुदेबपुर बागदाबिनायकपुर

1643

साबरपुर

140

695

सुंगुडा

गुआगन

910

सुआंन

1655

1570

132

अरतूगं

122

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

[फा. सं. आर-25011/11/2004- ओ.आर. - 1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 1873

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2007

S. O. 924.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of 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 under the land to Shri . Sukanta Kumar Pradhan , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip Haldia Pipeline Project , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Marketing Housing Complex, Meghadambaru , Post office- Kuruda , Balasore (Orissa) .

Schedule

State:Orissa

District:Bhadrak

Area

Khasra No.

Nameof Tehsil Name of Village

Are

Hectare

Sq. mtr.

297

45 Kandiasahi

Chandbali

1054

307

309

291

342

Deobil

376

Mulkaema

372

373

534

525

790

528 1874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

1899

Sansingpur

146

Barasingpur

3132

Madhapur

3123

000

3126

3107

3133

3124

1736

Ghatpur

5000

2114

2516

2515

4767

4753

3217

3129

3003

2800

2514

2529

2427

2124

1918

1921

265

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5

1144/1767

Santarapur

1671

1669

00 Tihidi

194

Bhanupur

412

Kanhupur

404

358

000

Sandakpur

1194

Kabirpur

1115

000

Jafrabad

527

526

000

513

00 11

39 1875

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

483

482

327

479

521

268

Nahunipal

263

266

262

234

162

168

167

166

264

1643

33 Basudevpur Bagdabinayakpur

Sabarpur

140

695

Sungura

910

Guagan

1655

Suan

1570

132

Arturng

122

[F. No. R -25011 /11 /2004-O.R. - I ) S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2007

का. . 925.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को , लोक हिंत में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दीया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भुमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तहसील राजकोनिका , जिला केन्द्रपाड़ा मे भुमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने के अपने आशय की धोषणा का.आ . 3300 , तारीख 16.12.2004 द्वारा की थी तथा बाद में उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) अंतर्गत का . आ . 1190 , तारीख 01.04.2005 द्वारा तहसील राजकनिका जिला केन्द्रपाड़ा में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये भुमि में अधिकार का अर्जन किया था 1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3( i) ] और उक्त दोनो अधिसूचनाओ में कुछ त्रुटिया पाई गई है जिनके कारण केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त अधिसूचना का.आ. 3300 , तारीख 16.12.2004 तथा का.आ. 1190 , तारीख 01.04.2005 जहां तक वह तहसील राजकोनिका जिला केन्द्रपाड़ा से संबंधित है , अधिकांत करने के पश्चात ऐसी पाइपलाइन को बिछाने के लिये , इस अधिसुचना से संलग्न सूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन , करना आवश्यक है ;

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

-कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबध्द है , उस तारीख से जिसको राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन या भूमि के भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के विरोध में श्री. सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया कृड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग हाउसिंग कॉम्पलेक्स मेघदम्बारा , डाकघर कुरुदा, बालासोर- 756050 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिल्हाःकेद्रपाडा

राज्य : उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

तहसील का नाम गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर

राजकनिका

परिनुआपाड़ा

2157

2096

2099

2097

2098

2090

2089

2082

2083

2085

2694

2086

2029

2030

2684

2031

2032

04 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2033

2020

2021

2017

2019

2607

2018

2006

2014

2007

2005

2000

1999

2653

1998

1994

1982

1993

1983

1767

1765

1760

1757

1758

1761

1755

1754

2600

1759

1753

1388

1389

1390

1393

1431

1520

1877 6

00 1878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

1521

1522

1526

1527

1529

1517

1392

1387

382

353

355

354

356

352

351

349

368

369

247

248

246

222

2465

221

215

257

214

216

217

210

207

206

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

93 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

00.

109

.00

608

मिर्जापुर

613

611

1117

604

603

615

600

599

1037

596

594

595

1031

563

565

566

00.

558

1046

550 931G1 /07-13

1879

00 1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

556

551

552

553

1055

366

365

362

347

349

350

1068

1067

247

248

249

1064

253

231

1038

234

232

233

1062

221

203

206

204

205

168

167

169

171

170

172

147

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

49 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

145

148

150

149

151

142

141

1076

1073

1097

177

कोथापाही

176

175

168

312

266

167

166

165

147

269

132

141

281

1881 6

-07

02.

85 1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

123

122

120

119

118

117

बालीबल्या

493

494

535

489

495

717

478

477

481

473

471

472

466

469

450

455

456

458

714

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929

435

440

441

439

1343

अगापाड़ा

1344

1341

1339

1342

1209

1227

1229

1228

1336

1230

1237

1238

1240

1246

1245

1244

1303

1309

1310

1311

1317

1319

1898

पेगरपाड़ा

1897

1895

1894

1883 6

-00

: 23

55 1884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

1229

1226

1225

1237

1212

1211

2143

1213

1210

1214

652

608

609

611

610

612

613

430

634

651

650

655

656

657

658

515

661

660

676

514

512

511

508

501

500

47 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

509

499

689

2187

690

707

706

708

709

712

710

711

821

820

822

819

818

815

814

813

810

806

809

807

808

2237

789

788

787

161

नाहुनी

160

159

150

126

124

1885 6

87.

1886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929

135

120

पन्की

3328

3242

3238

3239

3240

3235

3234

3233

3232

3231

3230

3229

3228

3314

3227

2857

3059

2850

2858

2863

2864

2866

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 5

76 1887

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3657

2867

2868

2869

2870

2865

2792

2876

2791

2783

2782

2775

2883

2.1

2886

2887

2909

2904

2651

1421

1422

1420

1419

3775

1425

1418

1426

1436

1376

1377

1378

1379

1380

1381

1.383

1382

931 G1/07-14 1888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

1330

1329

1328

3352

1335

3599

3598

1339

1297

1296

1285

1295

1283

1286

1287

1288

1289

1284

1254

1252

1251

1250

1534

1535

1536

1538

1540

1544.

1547

1545

1546

2513

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii ) ] 5

27 1889

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31. 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

1626

1622

1613

1623

3520

1387

1950

[फा. सं. आर-25011/12/2004- ओ.आर. -1 ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 29th March , 2007

S. O. 925. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum (crude) from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas 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 declared its intention to acquire the right of user in land in Tehsil Rajkonika, District Kendrapada vide number S.O. 3300 dated the 16th December , 2004 and subsequently under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vide number S.O. 1190 dated 1st April 2005 acquired the right ofuser in land in Tehsil Rajkonika, District Kendrapada to lay the said pipeline;

Andwhereas patent errors have occurred in the said notifications due to which it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification and after supersession of the notifications number S.O. 3300 , dated the 16th December , 2004 and S.O. 1190, dated the 1st April 2005 in so far as they relate to the land in Tehsil Rajkonika , District Kandrapada, declare its intention to acquire the right of user therein afresh;

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 inerein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip - Haldia.Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Housing Complex , Meghadambaru, Post Office-Kuruda, Balasore (Orissa) .

1890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) )

Schedule

District : Kendrapara

Name of Tehsil Name of Village Khasra No.

2157

Parinuapada

Rajkonika

2096

2099

2097

2098

2090

2089

2082

2083

2085

2694

2086

2029

2030

2684

2031

2032

2033

2020

2021

2017

2019

2607

2018

2006

2014

2007

2005

2000

1999 State : Orissa

Hectare

Area Are Sq . mtr .

04 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2653

1998

1994

1982

1993

1983

1767

1765

1760

1757

1758

1761

1755

1754

2600

1759

1753

1388

1389

1390

1393

1431

1520

1521

1522

1526

1527

1529

1517

1392

1387

382

353

355

1891 :

,00

01 1892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

354

356

352

351

349

368

369

247

248

246

222

2465

221

215

257

214

216

217

210

207

206

109

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )) 5

52 : भारत का राजयेत्र मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

608

Mirajpur

613

611

1117

604

603

615.

600

599

1037

596

594

595

1031

563

565

566

558

1046

550

556

551

552

553

1055

366

365

1893

06.

06 1894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

362

347

349

350

1068

1067

247

248

249

1064

253

231

1038

234

232

233

1062

221

203

206

204

205

168

167

169

171

170

172

147

145

148

150

149

151

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 5

96 1895

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

142

141

1076

1073

1097

1071

177

Kothapahi

176

175

168

312

266

167

166

165

147

269

132

141

281

123

122

120 931G1/07-15

84.

11 1896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

119

118

117

Balibhanda

493

494

535

489

495

717

478

477

481

473

471

472

466

469

450

455

456

458

714

435

440

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5

68 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

441

439

1343

Agapada

1344

1341

1339

1342

1209

1227

1229

1228

1336

1230

1237

1238

1240

1246

1245

1244

1303

1309

1310

1311

1317

1319

1898

Pegarpada

1897

1895

1894

1229

1226

1897

62 1898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10 , 1929

1225

1237

1212

1211

2143

1213

1210

1214

652

608

609

611

610

612

613

430

634

651

650

655

656

657

658

515

661

660

676

514

512

511

508

501

500

509

499

689

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

51 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10 , 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2187

690

707

706

708

709

712

710

711

821

820

822

819

818

815

814

813

810

806

809

807

808

2237

789

788

787

161

Nahuni

160

159

150

126

124

135

120

1899

00 1900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

3328

Panki

3242

3238

3239

3240

3235

3234

3233

3232

3231

3230

3229

3228

3314

3227

2857

3059

2850

2858

2863

2864

2866

3657

2867

2868

2869

2870

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

10 भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2865

2792

2876

2791

2783

2782

2775

2883

2886

2887

2909

2904

2651

1421

1422

1420

1419

3775

1425

1418

1426

1436

1376

1377

1378

1379

1380

1381

1383

1382

1330

1329

1328

3352

1335

.3599

3598

1901 6

96 1902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2

1339

1297

1296

1285

1295

1283

1286

1287

1288

1289

1284

1254

1252

1251

1250

1534

1535

1536

1538

1540

1544

1547

1545

1546

2513

1626

1622

1613

1623

3520

1387

1950

[ F. No. R -25011 /12/2004- O.R. - 1 ]

S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

1903 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 1 मार्च, 2007

services w.e.f. 28-12-1989 , of Shri Jit Kumar, Clerk- cum-typist is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date ?".

का.आ. 926.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया 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 1073/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/177/ 1991- आई आर ( बी- III ) /बी-1 ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 1st March, 2007

After the notice of the reference was given to the parties , they appeared through their representatives . The workman filed his statement of claim and after the Written Statement of the Management , he filed the replication. He also filed his affidavit whereas the Management filed the affidavit of Shri P. C. Dhall, their witness in support of the Written Statement . They also placed on record the photo- copies of the inquiry proceedings running into a number ofpages . The parties also lead oral evidence . The workman appeared as a witness in support of his claim whereas the Management examined Shri P. C. Dhall on two occasions i.e. on 27th Sep. , 1995 and on 22nd Feb., 2001. They also produced Shri J. S. Grewal , as their witness .

S.O. 926. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1073/ 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 tothe management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01-03-2007.

[No. L- 12012/ 177/ 1991 - IR(Β-ΠΙ)/B- 1] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

Case I. D. No. 1073/2005

Registered on 20-09-2005

Date ofDecision 5-01-2007

JitKumar through SBI Staff Congress, 3135/22 -D , Chandigarh Petitioner

Versus

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Region - II , Punjab , Zonal Office (Punjab ) Sector - 17 , Chandigarh Respondent

APPEARANCE :

:Shri J, G.Verma FortheWorkman

For the Management : Shri A. C. Jaidka

AWARD

As made out in the statement of claim, the grievance ofthe workman is that the Management placed him under suspension on 20th June , 1988 , for having committed fraud ofRs . 570, while working on Despatch Seat and for having destroyed four pages of the Despatch Register pertaining to the Registered letters thereby tempered with the record ofthe Management Bank ; that the Management asked the workman to reply the charges by the same evening , whereas he was entitled atleast 10 days time to submit the reply. The Branch Manager of Tibrim Branch alongwith other staffmembers pressurized the workman to give confessional statement with the assurance that his services will not be dispensed with in case he admitted his guilt . The Branch Manager and other staff members , by doing so , tried to screen the conduct of those staff members who were responsible for checking the Despatch Register, that during the inquiry the workman withdrew his confessional statement but the plea of the workman was rejected without any reason . The Management could not prove the guilt of the workman as there cause a number of contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses produced. It is further the claim of the workman that the Management did not follow the provisions of the Shastri Award while holding the Inquiry; that the punishment awarded was harsh; that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not consider the plea of the workman prospectively. They violated the principles of natural justice , equity and good conscious. He in the end prayed for quashing the order ofthe Management by which he was dismissed from the service by declaring the same as arbitrary, unjustified in nature and he may be reinstated with back wages and all consequential benefits which he would got what for the order of his dismissal.

The following reference was received for adjudication from Govt. of India vide their order No. L- 12012/ 177/91 - IR (B- III) dated 17th/ 18th Sep. , 1991 :-

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman, both on facts and in law. It is their case that the workman, while posted as Clerk/Typist, in Tibri Branch, under the headquarter of Chandigarh, misappropriated "Whether the action of the Regional Manager - II , State Bank of India, Chandigarh in dismissing the

931G1/07-16 1904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

that the evidence of the management was not upto the mark as it contained several contradictions . It is also his case that the Management had not conducted a fair and proper inquiry, to bring out the truth. The orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority were not supported by valid evidence , therefore , the award be passed against them , by reinstating the workman in service with full back wages and continuity in service.

funds of the Bank on 16 occasions between 17th Feb. , to 16th May, 1988. His modus operandi was that he would re- enter the mail of the Bank , already Despatched, while using the already procured receipts issued by the Post Office and would increase the expenses of the Bank under Postage Head and would pocket the amount so shown to have been spend for sending the letters . He also destroyed four pages of the Despatch Register containing the particulars of the Registered letters . He was , therefore , charge sheeted. He confessed his guilt . The Management despite that initiated Departmental Inquiry against him so as to give him full opportunity to put up inis case. In the inquiry the charges were proved against the workman . The Disciplinary Authority gave personal hearing to the workman before passing the final order by which he was awarded the punishment of dismissal . He filed an appeal against that order. The Appellate Authority gave personal hearing to the workman, but he agreed with the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority and approved the dismissal of the workman w.e.f. 28th Dec. , 1989

As stated earlier the workman not only filed his affidavit but also appeared as a witness . In his statement he claimed that he had not committed the fraud in the Bank nor he had an enmity with the Branch Manager concerned, however, the Branch Manager had summoned his wife and got the amount of Rs . 500 deposited. On the one hand he claimed that the amount was deposited by the employees who were concerned with the checking of record and on the other hand he claimed that the amount was paid by his wifc. He admitted that he had filed the reply to the show cause notice fifteen days after the receipt of the same but claimed in the Petition that he was not given ten days to file the reply. He proved his affidavit W- I as correct . The management examined P.C. Dhall , who in his statement , proved his affidavit M- 1, and stated that he has no personal knowledge about the case and whatever he has stated in the affidavit, is based upon the record . He proved his another affidavit dated 27th Sep. , 1995 and documents M- 2 to M - 12 . He further satated that the workman was assigned the duty of entering registered letters . The receipts issued by the Postal Authorities used to be kept in the Despatch Register . He admitted that the checking officer had not crossed the receipts checked by him , therefore , he was punished with caution whereas the workman was dismissed from service . The other witness of the management , J. S. Grewal , by his statement proved the inquiry proceedings exhibit M- 13 and stated that he has no knowledge that another official was also charge sheeted with the workman and what punishment was awarded to the workman and the other official .

In reply to the averments made by the workman , it is stated by the management that the workman was placed under suspension for misappropriating the funds of the Bank; that the charge sheet was served upon the workman on 10th August , 1988 and he submitted reply thereto on 25th August , 1988. Denying the claim of the workman that he was forced by the staff members to confess his guilt , it is stated by them that the workman had admitted his guilt athis own free will . He also deposited , in person, the amount ofRs . 570.80. The charges were proved against the workman during the inquiry. The inquiry was conducted in fair and proper manner; and that the order of the Disciplinary and Appellate was well justified being based upon the facts and was not against the principles of natural justice. The misconduct committed by the workman vas proved by the evidence produced by the management . The Disciplinary Authority applied its mind before passing the order of his dismissal, which is a speaking order. According to them the workman is not entitled to any relief.

The workman filed rejoinder and reiterated the facts stated in the statement of claim. He stated that the Head Cashier used to check the Despatch Register . The receipts ofmoney paid were duly checked . Thus the checking officer was also responsible for the alleged misappropriation; that the checking officer took undue benefit of ill health of the workitian and he was pressurized to make confessional statement . The Management, therefore. made the workman a scapegoat . He further claimed that he had requested for Farther time but was not given the same and was made to sabmi : dictated reply and was also made to sign the same on the assurance that he will be reinstated in service Accordingto him the amount of Rs . 570.80 was paid after collecting the same from the officials who were involved in the incident . Thus it was a drama/played to save those who were responsible for checking . It is also his submission

After going through the pleadings of the parties I find that this is a case in which the workman was punished after holding adomestic inquiry. The workman in the Claim Petition itself admitted that he was placed under suspension on 20th June , 1988 and was charge sheeted for having misappropriated an amount of Rs . 570 of the Bank , by falsely showing the Registered Letters Despatched and for destroying four pages of the Despatch register maintained about the registered letters . His grievance only is that he was given less time to submit reply to the charge sheet as he was entitled to submit the reply within 10 days whereas the Branch Manager had asked him to give the reply by the close of the day. This allegation of the workman ofhaving got less time to submit the reply fades away as the workman had been served with the chargesheet on 10th August, 1988 and he submitted the reply on 25th August , 1988 as is claimed by the management in the 1905

भारत काराजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र10, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii) ]

overcome the record which the management has proved by their evidence .

Written Statement in Para 3 on merits and admittedbythe workman in the replication.

Itmay be noted here that in a case of domestic inquiry this Tribunal has limited jurisdiction . It cannot substitutė its opinion to that of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority on facts As per the Hon'ble Apex Court as held in AIR 1996 SC 1252 & 1999 ( 1 ) SCT 642 this authority is not available even to the High Court in the writ jurisdiction and normally the Courts cannot interfere in the finding of the facts arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority and the AA , unless it is shown that the finding of the facts , arrived by those authorities , was perverse or legally untenable . After going through the claim petition I find that the workman has nowhere alleged as to what procedural lapse was committed by the Management while holding the domestic inquiry against him . It is also settled law that in the case of domestic inquiry the Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the finding of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The question of punishment can also be not touched unless it is shown that the punishment aswarded was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved against the workman.

Theworkman filed replication where he claimed that when he requested the Management on 20th August, 1988 , to give him further time to submit the reply he was called by the Branch Manager and on 25th August, 1988 , he was pressurized to submit a dictated reply to the chargesheet , with the assurance , that he will be reinstated in service. This claim the workman made on 9th March, 1994. Before that he had filed an appeal against an order of the Disciplinary Authority where he meekly claimed that the confessional statement was made under the dictates ofthe Branch Manager. He nowhere claimed that he had been pressurized to make the statement, during the proceedings in this Court . The workman did not produce any evidence to show that he had been pressurized to make a confessional statement. He did not even put a question or suggestion to the witnesses of the Management that he had made the confessional statements under pressure and who exerted thatpressure is also not shown. He could have summoned the Branch Manager in such a case who , according to the workman, had exerted the pressure on him. The workman also did not summon any of the other employees in whose presence as claimed by him, in the appeal , the confessional statement was procured. One can make such wild allegation after coming to know the mind of the competent authority but such a conduct is not natural but afterthought. Why hedid not allege this fact during the inquiry as he was well represented by a seasonal defence representative.

After going through the pleadings of the parties , the documents placed on record and evidence produced by them, it is clear that the workman was served the charge- sheet he submitted reply thereto the Management produced evidence against him. The Inquiry Officer provided full opportunity to the workinan to defend him during the inquiry, and he was represented by Shri J. G. Verma , a Seasoned Representative of the workers , who all through participated in the inquiry proceedings . It was proved that the workman had deposited the amount alleged to have been misappropriated with him . The workman nowhere disclaimed that the entries shown to have been made by him were not made by him. The Management produced the witnesses like Mohinder Pal , Teller who proved the document allegedto be prepared by the workman . He was fullycross-examined by the representative of the workman. The defence representative cross -examined other witnesses of the Management also, but could not take out anything to show that it was not the workman who had made the entries , alleged to have been made twice. The workman also failed to prove that the confessional statement made was not voluntarily and was under pressure and allurement. It was not once that he made confessional statements . On 25th August, 1988 he made a detailed statement admitting his guilt. He earlier also made statement on 17th May, by which he admitted that he had made the entries and was getting the record checked from the checking officer at the time, he used to be very busy in another job , so that he would not be caught for having made double entries .

After careful consideration ofthe submissions made by the parties and examining the record ofthe case , I am of the opinion that the inquiry held against the workman was Now coming to the record of the file I find that the workman nowhere denied that he had not re-entered the letters shown to have been sent by the Registered Post, which in fact had already sent and for sending the same he had raised the bill and drawn the money. He repeatedly stressed upon the fact that the checking officer was equally responsible , but the Management left him whereas dismissed with the services of the workman. In para no . 7 of the Claim Petition he further raised the point that the Registered Letter sent had double crossing which showed that there was a connivance of the checking officer. It is not , the question under consideration as to what was the role of checking officer. The Tribunal is required to know whether the charge against the workman was justified or not. A thief cannot get escape by claiming that he was not alone in committing the theft and was associated by another person who has not been proceeded against. The workman even in his pleadings has nowhere denied that he was not the person who have made the entries , alleged to have been made, twice or that he had not charged twice for sending the same letters . In substance his claim was only against the Checking Officer that the management did not prosecute him . In my opinion such a claim cannot relieve the workman of his liability, which, in this case, was found to be proved against him . The workman has failed to 1906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )| Reference No. 109 of 1999

PARTIES:

Agent . Bejdih -Methani Collieries of M/s . E. C. Ltd.: Methani , Burdwan .

Vrs.

Asstt . General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress . Asansol , Burdwan ,

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : Shri P. K. Goswami , Advocate.

For the union (Workman) : Shri R. K. Tripathi ,

Chief Organising Secretary. Koyala Mazdoor Congress . Asansol .

Industry : Coal

fair and proper. The Management proved the charge against the workman . He was , therefore , rightly punished by the Management . In my opinion the punishment awarded was also not disproportionate . It is not the question of large amount or small amount alleged to have been misappropriated. What is important is the conduct of the employee, who is associated with the financial institution. It is shown that the workman had not committed the mistake once but on a number of occasions and that speaks about his attitude . The management rightly decided to dismiss such an employee from service as they could not take the risk , by retaining such an employee and come down in the eyes of those who had entrusted their savings with them. The Plea of ill health of the workman and unfortunate circumstance he claimed to be , he remained also cannot mitigate his lapse. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the workman is 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, 2 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 927.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 02-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/443/1998- आई आर (मी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd March , 2007

S.O. 927. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 109/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 02-03-2007 .

[No. L-22012/443/ 1998 - IR(C -II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE ENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT :

Sri Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer

State: West Bengal

Dated the 16-03-22005

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide Its letter No. L - 22012/ 443/98 / IR ( C - II) dated 30-07-1999 has been pleased to refer the followingdispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

"Whether the action of the Management of B. C. Incline of M/s . ECL in dismissing the services of Sh Suku Majhi , U. G. Loader is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? " After having received the Order No. L - 22012 /443 /98/ IR ( C - 11 ) dated 30-07-1999 of the said reference from the Govt. of India . Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference Case No. 109 of 1999 was registered on 21-09-2001 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices to the respective parties through the registered post directing them to appear in the court on the date fixred and to file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were issued to the parties concerned. Shri R. K. Tripathi , ChiefOrganising Secretary of the union for the delinquent workman and Sri P. K. Goswami . Advocate for the management appeared and filed their written statement in support of their respective claims .

2. In brief compass the case of the union as set forth in its written statement is that Suku Majhi was a permanent employee ofBC /Patmohana Collicry having his designation asUnder ground Loader bearing U/Man No. 134120. He absented from duty with effect from 07-10-1997 to 06-11-97 1907

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

union is not entitled to any relief sought for and the reference should be accordingly dismissed.

due to serious illness of his mother as there was none to look after her except himself at his residence.

3. The main case of the union is that Suku Majhi was chargesheeted on 06-11-1997 which was duly replied by him. He was allowed to do his duty in January 98 but sübsequently dismissed from his service . He is a humble and illiterate workman who is passing his life as hand to mouth . He is ignorant about the formalities and procedure to be adopted in case of absence from duty.

7. From the perusal of the order sheets ofthe record it transpires that on 05-04-03 a hearing on the preliminary point was made before the Presiding Officer of this Tribünal . The validity and fairness of the enquiry proceedings was not challenged by the delinquent workman or the representative ofthe union as he had admittedly participated in the enquiry proceeding . So the enquiry proceeding was held tobe fair and valid and accordingly the date was fixed for final hearing the dispute on merit . The final hearing was made on 16-03-2005 and the award was kept reserved for order.

8. In view of the pleadings of the parties and the materials available on the record I find certain facts which are admitted by the respective parties , so before entering into the discussion of the merit of the case I would like to mention the facts which are admitted one .

It is the admitted fact that . Suku Majhi U.G. was the permanent employee of Lachipur Colliery of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited.

9. The further admitted fact is that the concerned workman was absent from his duty unauthorisedly with effect from 07-10-97 to 06-11-97 without any leave or prior permission and information of the management .

4. The further case of the union as per the pleading is that the period of absence is less than one month and that is due to some unforeseen family catastrophe. The extreme punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. He is not involved in any offence of theft or moral turpitude and absenteeism is a natural phenomenon specially in coalfield... In several similarly situated circumstances of the cases the management has considered reinstatement in service .He has got an un-blemish record in his service . He has got no record ofprevious misconduct as well during the tenure of his service record. Suku Majhi belongs to Scheduled Tribe community representing the weaker section of the society who deserves special consideration. It is also claimed that no second show -cause notice was ever issued to him which is against the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . A relief of reinstatement to the service with all the consequential benefit and with ful ' back wages have been sought .

10. It is also the admitted fact that a domestic enquiry was conducted by an enquiry officr and the workman concerned had participated in the enquiry proceeding and sufficient opportunities to defend himself were given . In the domestic enquiry the delinquent workman was held guilty for an unauthorized absence of the relevant period in question. It is also admitted fact that there is no charge- sheet against the workman for being habitual absentee .

11. It is the settled principles of law that the facts admitted need not be proved . Since these all facts are admitted one so I do not think proper to discuss the same indetail.

5. On the other hand the defence in brief as per the averments made in the written statement is that the delinquent workman was in the habit of making absent from duty without sanction or permission . He committed misconduct in absenting himself from duty without leave , for which he was chargesheeted and he had replied the chargesheet , which was not satisfactory and the management decided to conduct a departmental enquiry over the matter and accordingly an enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry on the basis of the charge sheet. Sufficient opportunities were given to the workman concerned to defend himself for the sake ofnaturaljustice.

12. On perusal of the record it transpires that none of the parties has examined any oral witness in support of their case . Some Xerox copies of the documents have been filedby the management. Xerox copy of the charge , enquiry proceeding along with its report and the copy of the order ofdismissal have been filed. These documents are admitted one as their genuineness , relevancy and contents are not challenged by the union.

13. It is obvious from the enquiry proceedings and its report that the delinquent workman had received the chargesheet and had participated in the enquiry proceedings .He has categorically admitted in his statement that he did not send any written information to the management about the illness of his mother . He has further admitted that he was absent from his duty since 07-10-97 6. The further case of the management.is that the enquiry officer sent notices of enquiry. The workman pleaded his guilt . The enquiry officer after concluding the enquiry found the charges proved and finally submitted his report . The management ofB. C. Incline having perused the enquiry report and his past performances approved dismissal of the workman concerned and accordingly he was dismissed . Absenteeism in the coal industry is the habit of the workman which is required to be restrained for the sake of national interest as well as for the interest of the public sector . The effort of the union is not commensurate with their liabilities entrusted upon by the statute . The 1908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] to06-11-97 due to illness of his mother as there was none except him to look after her.

well that before imposing a punishment of dismissal it is necessary for the disciplinary authority to consider socio- economic background of the workman , his family background , length of service put in by the employee , his past record and other surrounding circumstances including the nature of the misconduct . These are the relevant factors which must have to be kept in mind by the authority at the time of imposing the punishment which has of course been not done in this case .

14. Having gone through the entire facts , circumstances , enquiry proceedings together with its report I find that the workman concerned was admittedly absent from his duty w.e.f. 07-10-97 to 06-11-97 i.e. about a month continuously without any prior permission and information to the management . The enquiry officer has rightly held him guilty for an unauthorized absence w.c.f. 07-10-97 to 06-11-97 under section 10 ( G) of the Standing Order applicable to the establishment and in view of the said prevailing facts the workman concerned deserves some suitable punishment for the alleged misconduct proved as provided in the Model Standing Order applicable to the establishment .

15. Now the only main point for consideration before the court is to see as to how far the punishment awarded to theworkman concerned by the management is just , proper and proportionate to the alleged nature of misconduct proved.

16. Heard both the representatives of the parties to the dispute in question . It was submitted by the side of the union that it is a simple case of unauthorized absence from duty for about a month only and the absence from duty during the relevant period is duly explained. The absence from duty is about a month and that also under the compelling circumstance beyond his control . The enquiry officer in his findings has no where even whispered a word that the unauthorized absence was without any suflicient cause .

17. It was further submittedby the union during his argument that the workman concerned has got unblemish record durng the tenure of his service . The management has also not chargesheeted him habitual absence nor any chit of paper in this regard has been filed in the court nor there is any pleading in this regard as well . So it can be easily.concluded that it is the first offence of the workman which has been sufficiently explained indicating the compelling circumstance beyond the control of the concerned workman .

18. It was also argued out by the side of the union that it is a simple case of an unauthorized absence for about a month which can not be said to be a gross `misconduct . The attention of the court was drawn towards the specific provision of the Model Standing Order where the extreme punishment prescribed is dismissal as per the gravity of the misconduct and it was explained that the extreme penalty can not be imposed upon the workman in such a minor case ofalleged misconduct of an unauthorized absence for meager period of about a month . The submission and the points of argument have got sufficient. enough and continuing force on the factual point.

19. It has been several times clearly observed by the different Hon'ble High Courts and the Apex Court as

20. Admittedly the workınan concerned is an illiterate man of Majhi by caste who is the member of the scheduled tribes being the member of the weaker section of the society. He is no doubi financially weak and poor who has suffered a lot for about nine years and had never been gainfully employed any where as is apparent from the pleading that he is hand to 140uth . The attention of the court was drawn by the union towards the provision of the Model Standing Order where various minor punishment have been prescribed to be awarded according to the gravity of the misconduct . In the present case there is misconduct of the unauthorized absence of about a month only more so due to the fact that the mother of the workman was seriously confined to bed and there was none to look after her except the workman himself. He has admitted his guilt that he could not attoud his duty during relevant period due to the reasons mentioned above under the compelling circumstancebeyond his control and accordingly no informationto that effect was sent to the authority concerned. Besides this he was ignorant of the procedure as well in this regard . He begged apology for his misconduct . Besides it is also clear from the record that no second show cause notice was issued to the workman concerned before passing this order of punishment of dismissal wł ich is direct violation of the mandate of the Apex Court n this respect. I fail to think as to why only maximum punishment available under the said clause should be awarded in the prevailing facts and circumstance of the case. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that justice must be tempered with mercy and that the delinquent workman should be given an opportunity to reforın himself and to be loyal and disciplinary employee of the management . However I am of the considered view that the punishment of dismissal for an unauthorized absence for about a month under the compelling circumstance and without any malafide intention is not just and proper rather it is too harsh a punishment which is totally disproportionate to the alleged proved misconduct . Such a simple case should have been dealt with leniently by the management . In this view of the matter I think it just and proper to modity and substitute the same exercising the power under section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to meet the ends ofjustice and as such the impugned order of dismissal of the concerned workman is hereby set aside and he is directed to be reinstated with the continuity of the service and in the light of the facts , circumstance 1909

भारत काराजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : Shri Hardayal Singh, Advocate

FortheManagement : Shri RajeshGupta, AR

AWARD

and the misconduct for which the punishment for dismissal was imposed on the workman concerned, I think it appropriate that the delinquent workman be imposed a punishment of withholding one increment without any cumulative effect . It is further directed that the workman concerned will be entitled to get only 50% of the back wages which will serve the ends ofjustice . Accordingly it ishereby

ORDERED

21. That let an " Award" be and the same is passed in favour of the delinquent workman. Send the copies of the award to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

This is a reference received from the Govt . of India vide their No. L - 12012/ 111 / 91 /IR B- II dated 31st August , 1991, by which the Appropriate govt . has desired of this Tribunal to adjudicate upon " whether the action of the Management of PNB in relation to their Kaithal Branch in dismissing Shri Sushil Kumar, Ex-cash Peon w.e.f. 9th March, 1988 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 928.- 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, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1128/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -12012/ 111/ 1991- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd March, 2007

The reference was notified to the parties who appeared through their Counsel/Representatives . The workman filed his statement of claim, the Management their reply. The workman filed the replication and also his affidavit . He also placed on record the photo copies of the Cash book , judgement of the Court of session besides other documents . The management filed the affidavit of Shri J. K. Thapar their witness . They also produced photo- copies ofjudgement of the judicial Magistrate , Kaithal besides that of other documents . They also filed the affidavit of Shri S. P. Raja their Senior Manager. The workman appeared as a witness, his statement was recorded twice firstly on 18th May, 1994 and then 16th August, 2002 and the management produced Shri J. K. Thapar and S. P. Raja, as their witnesses .

S.O. 928. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1128/ 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 on01-03-2007 .

[No. L- 12012/111/ 1991 - IR(B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Shri Kuldip Singh, Presiding Officer

Case L. D. No. 1128/2005

Registered on 22-09-2005 Date ofDecision 03-01-2007

Sushil Kumar Singal C/o Shri Pawan Kumar Tareja, Moti Bagh, Kaithal (Haryana) Petitioner

Versus

The claim of the workman is that he was appointed as a peon in the Management Bank Branch Kaithal and was confirmed on that post in the year 1977 ; that on 26th April, 1982 he was given Rs . 5000 for depositing the Telephone Bill in the Post Office but when he visited the post office itwas closed . He came back to the Bank, but by that time the working hours closed and, therefore , he could not deposit the amount in the Bank which ultimately he deposited on the next day i.e. 27th April , 1982 in the suspense account; that a criminal case , for misappropriation, was instituted against him with the Police Kaithal and he was convicted by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Kaithal and punished with rigorous imprisonment of two years on 4th Feb. , 1988. On his appeal the session judge Kurukshetra allowed the appeal and he was released on Probation vide his order dated 26th May, 1989. The management, on the basis of the conviction , issued a show cause notice to him, which he received and submitted the reply under R/ C on 8th March, 1988 . However, the management , in haste, dismissed the workman from service w.e.f. 9th March, 1988 , without considering his reply; that the Management , with malafide mind, dismissed the workman from service . Since the workman was released by the session judge , therefore , no

Respondent

Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Kurukshetra 1910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

again lamed that he had deposited the amount of Rs. 5000 with the bank on the day next to day he was handed over the amount .

punishment could be inflicted upon him. Moreover, the workman had deposited the amount of Rs . 5000 in the Bank, therefore, he did not commit any criminal offence ; that the Management neither held any inquiry nor charge sheeted the workman before giving him the punishment and therefore, the order of punishment was bad in law. The Appellate Authority also failed in its duty judicially, therefore, the workman is entitled for reinstatement with, full back wages, continuity in service and all other consequential benefits .

It support of his claim the workman appeared as a witness and proved his affidavit Exhibit W - 1 . Besides docun W-2 to W -4 , In the cross -examination he admitted that he was given Rs . 5000 for depositing the same with Punjab Navonal Bank department but he could not deposit the sabse as the receipt counter in the Post Office was closed by thetime he reached that he deposited the amount in the suspense account of the Bank on 27th April, 1982 , as he could not do that on 26 itself since the concerned accountant told him that the amount could be deposited on the next morning . He admitted the contents of conciliation proceedings Exhibit M - 1 and M -2, but denied that thie amount of Rs . 5000 was not in fact deposited by him on 27th April, 1982. He admitted that he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate but was released by the Session Judge . He also admitted to have received the show cause notice giving him 7 days te file reply thereto , but claimed that he had received the notice on 3rd March , and had sent reply thereto by Registered Cover, but the Management had dismissed him from service on 9th March, 1988. By his subsequent statement , recorded on 16th August , 2002 , he proved additional affidavit VV - 6 and Exhibit W- 7 and stated that he cannot produce the original receipt by which he had subraunted his reply. He denied that he was summoned for personal hearing or that he had tampered with the date from 26th to 27th April, 1982. He admitted that he had withdrawn Rs . 5000 from his account on 27th July, 1982 , to payback the loan taken from PNB society at Hissar .

The management opposed the claim of the workman . It is their case that the workman had committed the criminal breach of trust since he did not deposit the amount of Rs . 5000 given to him and meant for depositing the telephone charges in the Post Office . Kaithal and also he did not return the bicycle by which he had been sent for the job of the Bank. Thereupon the Management reported the matter to the Police which found the allegation true and challaned the workman in the court of Sub - Divisional Judicial Magistrate . Kaithal . After the trial the learned Magistrate found the allegation proved against the workman and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years besides a fine of Rs . 400. Thereupon a notice was issued to the workman on 1st March , 1988 , to which he did not supply, therefore , the disciplinary authority dismissed him from the service . On an appeal , by the workman the additional session judge maintained the conviction, but gave the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offender Act to the workman and left him on his furnishing necessary bond and assurety. The order of releasing the workman on probation did not obliterate the conviction nor it could be equated with the wiping out of the factum of guilt .

Denying the contents of paras of the Claim Petition , itis stated that in fact the workman was appointed on 28th Dec. , 1977 ; and that since the workman was convicted of criminal offence, therefore , he was awarded the punishment of dismissal under the Bipartite settlement and there was no necessity to have given him the show cause notice before awarding the punishment although the management had issued him the notice but he did not reply . Denying the allegation of mala tide and arbitrariness, it is stated by them that the punishment was awarded in accordance with Bipartite settlement . keeping in mind the gravity ofoffence committed by him , therefore , the workman was not entitled to any relief.

The Management examined Messrs J. K. Thapar and S. P. Roja Shri Thapar by his affidavit proved documents M-4 to M - 10 and stated that an amount of Rs . 5000 was deposited in the suspense account so as to adjust the same by debiting to protested advances account . He denied that the workman had deposited Rs . 5000 in the suspense account. He admitted that exhibit W-5 was the copy of the suspense account register. He denied that the Bank had received any reply from the workman dated 8th March. 1988. De further denied to have received letter dated 24th Feb., 1988 from the workman . He also denied that there was any chury of Rs . 5000 having been deposited by the workman in the suspense account. He further denied that the workman was not afforded full opportunity to defend before the order of his dismissal , M - 10 , was issued . Shri S. P. Raja witness proved his affidavit M - 11 and stated that the notice to the workman was delivered on 2nd March . 1988. He denied any knowledge that at the time the services oftheworkman were terminated, the punishment- awarded to him had been suspended. He denied that the workman had deposited the amount on 27th April , 1982 rather it was debited from the account of the workman to the protested account with the authority of the workman on 27th July, 1942

The workman in the replication reiterated the facts stated in the Claim Petition and did not state anything new or explained any circumstance given by the management in their Written Statement . He only claimed that since the Management was in the knowledge that an appeal has been filed against the judgement of Judicial Magistrate, therefore , they should not have taken any action till the disposal of the appeal. In the affidavit , filed by him , he 1911 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र10, 1929

I have examined the record except the statement of the workman there is no prove to show that the workman has submitted his reply. The workman admitted that he had received the show cause notice from the Management but he has failed to prove that he has submitted the reply to the show cause notice . The workman admitted that he had received from the post office . He, however, claimed that he had deposited the amount in the account without showing that why he did so and not deposited the amount in the post office. Intelligently he has tried to make use of the entry in the suspense account which according to the management was the entry required so as to show as to where that amount of Rs . 5000 given to the workman was shown as a complaint was lodged with the Police . If the claim ofthe workman is true that in fact it was he who has deposited Rs . 5000 in the suspense account of the mánagement Bank . The evidence produced by the management showed that in fact the workman had withdrawn Rs. 5000 on 27th July, 1982 and the said amount was deposited with the Bank on the same day. There is a photocopy of voucher on record to prove this fact . So I find that the workman has failed to show that he had deposited the amount received by him on 27th April, 1982; and that he had submitted the reply to the show cause notice in time but the Management did not consider the

same.

From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence producedby them it emerges out that the workman was in the employment of the Management as Cash Peon at Kaithal Branch . On 26th April , 1982, he was given Rs . 5000 Rs , for making the payment in the Post Office as the Telephone Charges of the Telephone installed at the residence of the Branch Manager . The workman left the office on bicycle of the Management Bank but he did not deposit the money in the Post Office nor returned the Bi -cycle ; that on a complaint by the management Police investigated in the matter and found a case under Section 406/409 RPC proved against `him and challaned him in the court of Judicial Magistrate , Kaithal. After the trial the workman was convicted and punished to undergo imprisonment for two years and also to pay an amount of Rs . 400 as fine . On appeal the learned Additional Session Judge , Kurukshetra released the workman under Probation of Offenders Act after maintaining the conviction, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. It is here that the parties dispute about the facts . The claim of the workman is that the Management without considering his reply to the notice dismissed him from service whereas the claim of the Management is that they had given 7 days notice to the workman but he did not file the reply to the notice, therefore , the management dismisses him from service under Bi -partite settlement . Para 19.3 ofthe Bi -partite settlement reads as under :-

(a) When in the opinion of the Management, an employee has committed an offence, unless hebe otherwise prosecuted , the bank may take steps to prosecute him or get him prosecuted and in such a case he may also be suspended.

(b) If he be convicted , he may be dismissed with effect from the date of his conviction or be given any lesser form of punishment.

The factual position is different than what the workman has claimed . As stated earlier since the workman did not deposit the amount of Telephone Charges with the PostOffice, therefore , the Management transferred that amount in the suspense account showing that the utilization of that amount is under dispute and reported the matter to the police for investigation as is argued that could have given the Management, the cause to withdraw further amount so as to pay the Telephone charges showing that the amount earlier drawn was misappropriated and has remained unaccounted for which a criminal case was registered.

As regards the claim of the workman that the Management had not given him the notice before giving him the punishment , it may be noted that the workman himself admitted to have received the notice and did not file the reply within the prescribed period . He claimed that he had sent the reply on 8th March, 1988 whereas the reply should have been received by the Management by 9th March and in no case it could reach the Management on 9th having been sent a day earlier . The workman could very well hand over the reply to the Management by hand ifat all he wanted the management to consider the same since he was also residing in the same town where the Disciplinary Authority was stationed. Therefore , there is no weight in the submission of the workman that the Management had punished him without considering his reply. As per the Management the so- called reply never reached them even thereafter. In terms of Sub- Clause B of Sub- Clause 2 of Clause 93 of the 1st Bi -partite Settlement clearly reads that in case the workman commits offence and is convicted , he may be dismissed from service w.e.f. the date of his conviction or be given any lesser punishment as mentioned in clause 19.6 . The law is , therefore, clear. The workman was convicted for an offence and he could be dismissed from service or at the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority he could be given lesser punishment as detailed in Clause 19.6 of the first Bi -partite settlement . As per record of this case , the Disciplinary Authority took the option of dismissing the workman from service . There is no dispute that the conviction of the workman stands even till today. The learned Additional Session Judge Kurukshetra after upholding the conviction recorded by the Judicial Magistrate took a lenient view and left the workman under the provision of the Offenders Act. By that order the learned Session Judge did not disturb the conviction recorded and the Management having found the workman convicted dismissed him from service . The claim of the workman is that the Management should have considered his reply and then takes the decision.

931G1 /07-17 1912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . The award is passed. Let a copy of this award be sent to the apapropriate govt . for necessary action and the file be consigned to records after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 मार्च, 2007 .

Clause 19.3 of the first Bi - partite settlement, it was not obligatory on the part of the Management to have issued notice to the workman before awarding him the punishment. How could the Management retain an employee who was found to have misappropriated the money which was given to him for depositing the same in the Post Office and who had retained the bicycle of the Management which he had allowed to use for going to the Post Office to perform his official duty.

का.आ. 929.- 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 अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 337 / 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 89/2000 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 7th March , 2007

S.O. 929. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 337/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manageinent of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05-03- 2007.

[No. L - 12012/ 89/2000 - IR(B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

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

(Tuesday the 20th day of February , 2007/ 1st Phalguna, 1928) I. D. 337/2006

11.D. 104/2000 of Industrial Tribunal , Alapuzha)

Workman

: V. P. Prabha Devi , D/ o Raghavan Pillai , Chooranollil House , Devagiri P.O. Kottayam District -686 555 Adv. Shri H. B. Shenoy The workman has relied upon a number of judgements including that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Dass V/ s . Union of India reported as 1985( 2) recent criminal reports 117. In that case the accused could not deposit the amount he was entrusted. He was visited with misfortune as his son died in Feb .. 1962 which was followed by another misfortune ; his wife fell down from upper storey of the house and was seriously injured; it was then the turn of his daughter who feli seriously ill and was seriously ill for 8 months . It was in those circumstances that the Court took the lenient view and left the accused on probation . Perhaps moved by those circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the dismissal of the Govt . service on the basis of his having been held guilty of the charge, was not proper. But in the present case the workman has not brought on record any such circumstances to show that he was estopped from making the payment of Rs . 5000 because of adverse circumstances . The workman infact has tried to show by hiş mischievous approach that he had deposited the money back on the very next date . whereas he made the payment after three months . Therefore , he is not entitled to the benefit he is claiming on the basis of the judgement referred to above. In my opinion the other judgements relied upon by the workman arc also of no help to him since the facts in those cases relate to the Govt . Employees who were governed by Article 311 of the Indian Constitution and the service rules. In the case of the workman he was subject to Bi-partite Settlements and the Awards and as nod above , Clause 19.3 of the Ist Bi -partite gave discretion to the Management to dismiss the workman from service when he was proved to have been convicted for a criminal offence . The law laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Punjab v/ s Karnail Singh reported as 1995 ( 1 ) RSJ 560 , is also of no help to the workman for the reason that in that case the Management had not given notice to the workman before imposing the penalty of dismissal on him , but in this case the notice was issued but the workman did not reply to the notice . The Management , therefore , did not violate the principles of naturaljustice .

Management

The Regional Manager , Central Bank of India, Regional Office , Ernakulam.

Adv. Shri V. V. Sidharthan After due consideration of the pleadings of the parties , the evidence brought on record I am of the opinion thatthe action ofthe Management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Shri Sushil Kumar , Ex - Cash Peon , of their Kaithal Branch w.c.f. 9th March, 1988 , was justified and the [भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

1913

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in relation to their Devagiri Branch in terminating the services of Smt . V. P. Prabha Devi, Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 11-9-1996 is justified ? Ifnot, what relief she is entitled to ? "

2. This reference was made to Industrial Tribunal , Alapuzha initially. The Industrial Tribunal, Alapuzha found that the termination of service of part -time sweeper , Smt . V. P. Prabha Devi was illegal and violative of S -25F of I.D. Act as she had worked more than 240 days during a period of 12 months prior to her termination and hence she was entitled to be reinstated in service and she would be deemed tobe in service till she is validly terminated. This awardwas challenged before Hon'ble High Court ofKerala in writ petition WP( C) No. 39016/2003 . The Hon'bleHigh Court set aside the award and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It was observed by Hon'ble High Court that the burden is on the worker to prove that she had worked for more than 240 days as claimed by her. This aspect has to be considered with reference to the evidence on record . Thereafter the case was transferred to this court from Industrial Tribunal, Alapuzha .

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

According to the worker, Smt. V. P. Prabha Devi , she was employed in Devagiri Branch of Central Bank of India as a sweeper on 24-11-1988 . It was against a permanent vacancy that she was appointed . She has beenworking continuously till 11-9-1996. Her service was terminated without giving her notice or compensation in lieu of notice . Though she had been working continuously in permanent vacancy she was treated as a temporary worker just to deprive the status and privileges of a permanent workman. She made several requests for regularization in service . The bank took no steps in that regard. On the other hand she was terminated from service . However juniors to her were retained by the bank. After termination of worker new hands were taken by the bank . The worker had worked for more than 240 days and she is entitled to notice before termination . The bank has violated the procedure under Industrial Disputes Act for termination of service . Therefore the worker is entitled for reinstatement as well as regularization with back wages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits .

4. The management in their written statement contends that the worker was neither engaged continuously nor against any permanent vacancy. The Devagiri Branch had a permanent part- time sweeper from 1-7-1988 . She had beencontinuously working till her transfer on 4-1-1992 . Thereafter one Smt. K.Vijayamma was the permanent part- time sweeper from 27-7-1992 to 31-1-1994. Thereafter the branch had no permanent part -time sweeper from 1-2-1994 to 10-9-1996 . During this period several casual workers were employed as part - time sweepers on daily wagebasis . The worker had also worked on daily wage basis during thisperiod. However, during 1995-96 she had worked only for 14 days intermittently. There was no occasion for the worker to request for regularization in service as she had no legal right for the same. There is no violation of any provisions of I.D. Act . She had not been in continuous service . There is no question of retrenchment and issuance ofany notice as she is not a ' workman' coming within the definition of ' workman' in the I.D. Act . It is denied that juniors to the worker were retained by the bank while terminating the service of the worker . The management made regular appointment in accordance with law. The worker is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement. The Head Office of the bank has issued circulars and guidelines for recruitment and absorption of temporary employees. There is no violation of any provisions of law or circulars in the matter of non -engagement of the worker. She is not entitled for any relief.

5. The worker filed a rejoinder reiterating the contentions in the claim statement and refuting the contentions in the written statement of the management that the plea of management, that several casual workers were employed as part time sweepers and the worker was only one of them, is incorrect . Other than the worker none elsewere engaged. From November , 1991 to 11-9-1996 the worker was employed continously without any break or interruption at Devagiri Branch. Though she was employed from 24-11-1988 to Ootober, 1991 there was certain artificial breaks of few days . The worker has put in continuous service of8 years in the bank.

6. In the light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for consideration :

(1 ) Whether the claimant has worked for more than 240 days continuously prior to her termination ?

(2) Is the worker entitled for reinstatement ?

(3) Is she entitled for regularization ?

(4) To what other relief the worker is entitled ?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW1 and Ext . W1 series on the side of worker and MW1 & 2 and Exts . M1 to M6 on the side of management.

7. Point No. (1 ) :

According to the claimant , Smt . V. P. Prabha Devi , shewas working as part- time sweeper, since 24-11-1988 till 11-9-1996 continuously and she had worked more than 240 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 1914

days during a period of 12 months prior to her termination. It is clarified by Hon'ble High Court in the judgement by which the award of Industrial Tribunal , Alapuzha was set aside and remanded , that the burden is on the workman to prove that she had worked 240 days during 12 months preceding her termination . The Hon'ble High Court had referred to the following decisions in the judgement and they are again cited before me by the learned counsel for the management :

Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills itd . 1. State of Rajasthan ( 2004 ) 8 SCC 161 ; Municipal Corpn . Faridabad v . Siri Niwas ( 2004 ) 8 SCC 195 and HUDA v. Jagmal Singh 2006- III -LLJ 152.

theworker made some improvement in her case by filing replication. There it is stated that though she was working front 24-11-1988 to October, 1991 there was some intermittent artifiant breaks of few days . However from November, 1991 to 11-9-1996 she was working continuously and without interruption. When the worker was in the box ( WW1 ) in the cross - examination she stated (pg. 5 ) that during 1988 she had worked only for 3-4 days . Thereafter she was told that as and when her service was required she would be called. But she was not called until 1991. From then onwards till 11-9-1996 she was working continuously without interuption . Thus at various stages she made improvements in her case. On the other hand the management has a cons: stent case from the time of pleading till evidence that the worker was never employed against any permanent vacancy that she was working from 24-11-1988 , is not correct . that Smt . Ponnamma was the permanent part -time sweeper in Devagiri Branch from 1-17-1988 to 4-1-1992, that Sou K. Vijayamma was the permanent sweeper from 27-7-1992 to 31-1-1994 and that thereafter till 10-9-1996 nobody was appointed as permanent sweeper. During this period hom 1-2-1994 to 9-9-1996 several casual workers were tugaged as part -time sweepers on daily wage basis . Smt Prabha Devi was one of them . She had worked altogether only 14 days from 2-9-1995 to March , 199fact6 as casual worker in different periods . After 10-9-1996 a regular bandwas recruited and appointed . MWI andMW 2 are managers who worked in Devagiri Branch . They have spoken in terms of the contentions of the management . MW2 was there in Devagiri till August , 1966. According to hini one Ponnamma and thereafter one Vijayamma were working as permanent part- time sweepers from 1988 to 1994 . Thereafter no permanent sweepers were appointed, but the cleaning was done through several casual workers .

8. On the other hand , the learned counsel for the worker drew my attention to a 3 - Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yellatti R. M. v . Assistant Executive Engineer 2006-1 - LLJ 442. The relevant discussion on the aspect is contained in paragraphs 17 & 18. There is no change in the position in this case also that the burden of proof is on the workman to prove that he has worked 240 days continuously during a period of 12 months prior to his termination . However it was observed that the workman will have practically no documents in his possession to prove his case. He could only discharge his burden by mounting the box and stating his case and also calling for records from the management . If the management is not producing the records called for er not offering satisfactory explanation for non - production , then the court will have to see whether the workman has sausfactorily discharged his burden . In the reported case the worker had produced a certificate issued by management ( Assistant Executive Engineer ) which showed that the workman had worked from 24-11-1988 to 20-6-1994 . The workman had summoned muster - rolls for this period from the management . But the management produced only a few of the muster- rolls and not all the muster - rolls covering the period. The workman had stepped into the witness box and had stated his case . In the circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court had interfered with the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the award of the Labour Court which had directed the management to reinstate the worker with 50 per cent back wages from the date of award. Thus . in the decision cited there was evidence to show ( certificate issued by the management ) that the workman had worked for more than 240 days and the workman had giv en evidence also entering the witness box and also had cailed for relevant documents from the management side .

10. The worker had summoned 4 documents from the snagement side . They are: Register of retrenched and temporary employees . P & L misc . daily wages paid account , vouchers and circulars (5 in number ) . The mangement produced the vouchers and 3 circulars . They filed an affidavit stating that they are unable to produce the register of retrenched and temporary employees as well as P& L nase , daily wages paid account . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the worker that the management has not gav en reason for non - production of the P & L misc . daily wages paid account . It is contended that the said account book and the vouchers are the relevant and only documents to prove the number of days that the worker had worked. Since the management has failed to produce the same or offer satisfactory explanation for non - production, an adverse inference has to be drawn against them . It is to be noted that the management has produced about 176 vouchers. It has come out in evidence that the vouchers are menntained in the bank daily - wise and they include all kinds of vouched payments . It was from out of those bundles of vouchers that 176 vouchers were traced out .

9. However on facts the case on hand differ . There is neither admission by management nor evidence to prove the continuous service . The claimant has no consistent case . In the claim statement her case is that since 24-11- 1988 she was working against a permanent vacancy of part-time swceper continuously upto her termination on 11-9-1996 . After the management filed written statement 1915

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

permanent vacancy. From among 176 vouchers produced inthis case the following vouchers relate to the worker :

They pertain tothe period from 1988 to 1996. In the written statement at page 3 the management has given details of engagement of the worker. As per those details she had worked only 14 days as shown below :-

1995

: July 2days

1995 August : 2 days

Vouchers dated 27-5-1989, 21-7-1989, 5-9-1989, 10-1-1990, 7-2-1990, 22-3-1990, 12-4-1990, 17-4-1990, 8-5-1990, 10-7-1990, 18-7-1990, 1-9-1990, 16-10-1990, 23-1-1991 , 7-3-1991 , 2-4-1991, 23-7-1991, 10-9-1991 , 14-9-1991, 9-7-1992, 27-7-1992, 5-8-1995, 21-12-1995 and 20-2-1996.

1995 November : 2 days

1995 December : 2days

1996 February : 4 days

1996 March : 2 days

14days

All other vouchers relates to payments made to several other casual workers . Thus the vouchers reveal that the claimant was one among the several casual workers working at different intervals and not continuously. At any rate the worker, has to prove that preceding the termination, for a period of 12 months she was working continuously for 240 days in order to claim that she is a 'workman' coming within the definition of S - 2 (s) in order to claim the benefits u/s -25F of I.D. Act. Considering these circumstances and the inconsistent version ofthe worker and in the light of the documentary evidence of Exts . M2 , 3, 4 and 6 as well as vouchers (not seen marked in I.T. Alapuzha) it has to be found that the worker has not been able to prove that she has put in 240 days ' continuous work prior to her termination. No inference can be drawn against the management for non -production of P& L Miscellaneous Daily Wages Paid Account Book, in view ofproduction ofa number ofvouchers for the period 1988- 1996. On the other hand the worker has not been able to discharge her burden and so the point has to be answered. against her.

11. Point No. (2) :

Since the worker was not employed in continuous service for a period of 240 days during the 12 calendar months prior to her termination she is not entitled to the benefits u/ s . - S - 25F of I.D. Act . By merely becoming a workman' within the definition of S -2 (s) of I.D. Act one does not get any right for continuance in service or for a retrenchment notice or compensation . The management is free to retrench the service of an employee or a casual worker when the labour is found excessive. Hence for want ofnotice, termination cannot be called illegal . The worker has not acquired any right under I.D. Act to claim reinstatement .

12. It is mentioned in Para 5 of the claim statement that the management has not complied with the conditions laiddown in paragraphs 522 , 523 & 524( 1 ) of Sastri Award .

Para 522(4 ) of Sastri Award is as follows:

"Service of any employee other than permanent employee or probationer may be terminated and he may leave service after 14 days ' notice . If such an employee leaves service without giving such notice he shall be liable for a week's pay (including allowances) ."

However, among the vouchers produced here only two vouchers pertain to the period 1995. There is only one voucher regarding the period 1996. However the management admits that the worker had worked 8 days during 1995 and 6 days during 1996. The vouchers produced here show that a number of casual workers were engaged not only during 1995-96 but even prior to that for doing the work of part - time sweeper on daily wage basis . This indicates that the case of the management is more probable and true . Whereas the case of the worker that she has been working continously against permanent vacancy from 1991 till September, 1996, cannot be correct . Her further case that nobody else was appointed during this period, cannot alse be true as there are many vouchers belying this contention. Thus the management has not suppressed documents in order to defeat the case of the worker . They have produced available vouchers pertaining to the period from 1988 to 1996. There can be no doubt that the vouchers for this period must be many in number contained in many bundles. It is not an easy task to trace out relevant vouchers which are kept together with other vouchers for the period from 1988 to 1996. It is against this background that the non -production of P& L misc . daily wages paid account has to be viewed. Besides , the case of the worker is belied by the documents produced by the management regarding appointment of permanent hands from 1988 to 1994. Ext. M2 is appointment order dated 20-7-1988 issued to Smt. V. P. Ponnamma. Ext . M3 is copy of memorandum dated 17-12-1991 containing the order of transfer of Smt . Ponnamma to another branch. Ext .M4 is appointment order of Smt . K. Vijayamma dated 15-7-1992 . Ext . M6 is order dated 17-1-1994 transferring Vijayamma to another branch on promotion . Thus the orders issued by the bank reveal that from 1988 to 1994 there were permanent part- time sweepers in the bank. Therefore during this period the claimant could not have worked in permanent vacancy. If at all she was working during this period upto 1994 it would have been only on leave vacancy and not against 1916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929

Paragraph 523 reads:

" It is now well settled that in cases where the services of a workman are terminated on grounds of retrenchment some compensation should be payable to himby way of equitable relief. The principle behind it is that the workman is not responsible , in any way, for the loss of his employment. Even where retrenchment is forced upon the managements by reason of circumstances beyond their control , it is but just that they should give compensation for involuntary unemployment of their workmen when they have had the benefit of their services in the past. This is now so well established that it has come tobe regarded as more or less a self-evident principle . Reference may also be made in this connection to the most recent decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in 1953 ( 1 ) Labour Law Journal , 224.

Paragraph 524( 1 ) reads:

"Temporary employees who are engaged for indefinite periods shall be entitled to one month's pay and allowances . Where, however , temporary employees are engaged for definite periods which have been mentioned in their appointment letters no compensation will be payable . "

Temporary employce is defined in the 1st Bipatite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 in paragraph 20.7 as follows :

"In supersession of paragraph 21.20 and sub- clause ( c) of paragraph 23.15 of the Desai Award. Temporary Employee will mean a workman who has been appointed for a limited period for work which is ofan essentially temporary nature or who is employed temporarily as an additional workman in connection with a temporary increase in work of a permanent nature and includes a workman other than permanent workman who is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence of a particular permanent workman. "

13. In view ofthis definition of temporary employee the worker cannot be a temporary employee as per Para 524 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award . However, Para 522 (4 ) of Sastri Award referes to workers other than permanent workers or probationers . Going by that provision in the Sastri Award even a part -time casual worker is entitled to 14 days' notice or in licu of that a week's pay including allowances . That is all the eligibility of a casual part - time worker like the claimant in this case . But , for want of a termination notice as per Para 522 (4 ) of Sastri Award she cannot claim reinstatement because there is no provision in the Sastri Award for reinstatement in service in case of non -compliance with Para 522 ( 4 ) . Such a right can be claimed only as per the provisions of I.D. Act wherein S - 25F mandates service of one month's notice or compensation in lieu of that in case the worker has put in

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] continuous service of240 days during a period of 12 months prior to termination . As that is not fulfilled the worker has no right for reinstatement . Point is answered accordingly.

14. (Point No. 3) :

In view of the above finding it follows that the claimant has not acquired any right whatsoever to claim regularization in service especially so in view of the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi 2006 4 SCC1 . that temporary, ad hoc or casual workers have absolutely no right for absorption in service however long they have been working. Therefore the question of regularization is beyond consideration in this case .

15. (Point No. 4) : (See Award portion)

16. In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Smt . V. Prabha Devi , casual part- time sweeper is legal and justified . The worker is not entitled for any relief. No cost . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her . corrected and passed by me on this the 20th day of February, 2007.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness for the Worker :

WWI Smt . Prabha Devi .

Witness for the Management :

MST : Shri Mohandas

MV2 Shri Surendran Nair.

Exhibits for the Worker :

(3 Nos .)

W1 series : Copy of circulars dated 13-3-1990 . 18-9-1990 and 18-2-1991 issued by the Regional Office of Central Bank of India .

Exhibits for the Management :

: Photostat copy of list of applicants for the post of Safai Karamchari sent from the Town Employment Exchange . Changanacherry.

12 : Copy of appointment order No. Misc . 6/88/137 dated 20-7-1988 issued to Smt . V. P. Ponnamma .

M : Copy of Memorandum No. CRO : PRS : 91-92: 2003 dated 17-12-1991 issued to Sint . V. P. Ponnamma .

M4 : Copy ofMemorandum No. CRO : PRS : 92-93 496 dated 15-7-1992 issued to Smt . K. Vijayamma.

[ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

M5 : Copy of staff service , leave record and otherparticulars of Smt . K. Vijayamma.

M6 : Transfer Order No. CRO: PRS : 93-94 : 2742 dated 17-1-1994 in r/o . Smt . K. , Vijayamma.

नई दिल्ली, 9 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 930.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 64/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/173/97- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th March, 2007 S.O. 930. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 64/1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court- I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofState Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on08-03-2007.

[No. L- 12012/ 173/97 - IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, NEW DELHI

L. D. No. 64/98

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri Parmanand Pandey,

C/o Krantikari Mazdoor Morcha,

Near ShivMandir, Giri Nagar,

Workman Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110019

Versus

The ChiefManager,

StateBank ofBikaner and Jaipur,

Head Office, Tilak Marg,

1917

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012/ 173 /97 - IR(B - I) dated 4-3-1998 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication : -

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Paramanand Pandey, Caretaker of Guest House , since 5-10-1994 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman was working on the post of caretaker since 8-10-1987 at Rs . 1000 per month..He was doing duty of 16 hours a day and was getting pay for doing 8 hours dutywhich was less than minimum wages. The workman was initially appointed at Guest House , Ahinsa Bhawan, Shankar Road, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi and after sometime he demanded minimum wages , overtime allowance andNational Holidays Festival , Weekly Off and other legal dues and the management sent him to the above branch without any transfer letter . Workman was doing duty here for two years . It is stated that after sending him to the above branch , he was not paid back wages , nor minimum wages but like bandhua mazdoor the management got him work from him and management sometimes threatened him to turn out him from the end to involve him in a false case so the workman continued to work. It is stated that it has become difficult to meet both ends for me then he demanded verbally minimum wages , arrears , overtime, leave salary then the management terminated his services w.e.f. 5-10-1994 and he was not paid wages for September and October, 1994. It is stated that the workman has taken assistance of the union and on 27-10-1994 he gave demand letter to the management through Regd. A.D. and U.P.C. to which the management did not give any reply . In the end the workman has filed case before the ALC ( Central ) on 27-5-1996 to which the management cannot give correct reply. Theworkman filed rejoinder to the reply on 18-11-1996 . The management did not settle the dispute nor paid wages ofSeptember and October, 1994 whereas the management accepted this fact that workman is entitled to wages . The Conciliation Officer has sent this dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. The workman is still unemployed. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with back wages and be given the same .

...Management

PBNO. 154, Jaipur

APPEARANCES :

None for the workman.

Shri RajatArora A/R for management .

3. The management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that the claimant is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act , 1947. The allegations made in the claim statement show that he was only a caretaker in the guest house and as such he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the I.D. Act, the reference is liable to be rejected . There was no employer- employee relationship between the claimant and the 1918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , / CHASTRA 10, 1929

[ PART II- SFC . 3 (ii) ]

9-10-19 at Kailash Mountain , New Delhi guest House respondent . No appointment letter was ever issued to the claimant . The claimant has not produced any documents which go to show that he was an employee of the management bank. As such the claim is liable to be dismissed onthis ground . On merits it is denied that the claimant was recruited by the management bank. It is submitted that the claimant was working on contract as a caretaker at the Green Park guest house of the respondent back . The claimant was on contract from 8-10-1987 at a remuneration ofRs . 500 per month which was subsequently increased to Rs. 650 PM and further increased to Rs . 750. In the year 1992 it was further increased to Rs . 1000 PM . The aimant was posted from 9-10-1992 at Kailash Mountain , New Delhi guest house in place of the Green Park guest hour . It is again reiterated that the claimant was a caretaker and as such his claim that he has not been paid the minimum wages is untenable. He would provide tea/ food/ snacks etc. to the guests and would take payments from them directly: Claim ofthe workman is denied and it is prayed that the cinim be dismissed and the reference be answered in favour of the management .

4. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein the controverted facts of the written statement were refuted and those of the claim statement were re - terated to be correct.

instead Citeen Park Guest House . It is again reiterated that the dumant was caretaker and his claim for minimum wages i untenable . He used to provide tea/food/ snacks etc. to me guest house and was taking payment from them direct Workinan last appeared on 26-2-2004 and did not appeas Pereafter on subsequent hearings . Neither the workne nor anybody on his behalf appeared on subsequa hearings despite notice. Workman failed to appeas even despite issue of notice vide order dated 6-4-20 for appearance and for cross - examination and the case adjourned to 12-7-2005 for evidence of the management . Management examined Shri Vinod Kumar MWI ot. -10-2005 and the case was posted for arguments on 17-10-2005 and arguments were addressed by the advoch of the management . After his examination workers did not appear to cross -examine the management witness As such even otherwise there is no documentary evidence on record that the workman was recruited or appointed as caretaker at the guest house as claimed or he was kep contract basis as claimed by the management . Mere a position of the workman by way of affidavit in the absence of documents that he was appointed/ recruited at the gues, rouse of the government at Rajinder Nagar is not suficient to prove his case that he worked as an emplo of the respondent and his services were terminados claimed.

ew of the above discussions it is evident that the workman failed to substantiate his claim that he was employed as caretaker at respondent's guest house and his sons were terminated by the respondent as claimed . Hence de my view workman is not entitled to any relief and reference is decided accordingly .

5. The workman examined himself as WWI in support of his claim and closed his evidence and management examined Shri Vinod Kumar Dy. Manager ( Liason) examined asMW1 and was not cross - esamined by the workman as none was present for the workman and case was adjourned to 17-10-2005 for further statement of management witness . On 17-10-2005 , 19-10-2005 , 14-11-2005 and on 21-11-2005 also none for the workman appeared and Shri Sunil Prakash A/R for the management addressed arguments .

ether it is ordered that the requisite number of copies ofthis award may be forwarded to the Central Government for new sy action at their end .

Dated07

6. I have heard A/R for the management and perused the record carefully . My findings on the reference are as under:

SANT SINGH BAL . Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली. 8 माचं . 2007

सा. आ. 931.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) हां भारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निहिं संयोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यानं. 2. नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2005 ) को प्रकाशितना है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

In this case claimant claims that he was engaged by the respondent at his guest house as caretaker and he worked there since 8-10-1987 at the rate of Rs . 500 PM. His services were terminated w.e.f. 5-10-1994 when hedemanded minimum wages overtime but the respondent denies that he was engaged as caretaker raising preliminary objection that the claimant was workman as claimed and that he was appointed and recruited as caretaker in the Guesi !House . He was only kept as a contractor he was not employed/ recruited by the management. He was working on contract as caretaker on contractual basis at Guest House of the respondent and since October, 1987 , at a remuneration- of Rs . 500 p.m. which was increased to Rs . 650 p.m. and it was further increased to Rs . 750 and in the year 1992 was further increased to Rs. 1000 p.m. He was posted from

[मं. एल 12012/ 183 / 2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 8th March, 2007 S.O. 931. In . pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 07-03-2007.

[No. L- 12012/ 183/2004- IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 5/2005

Shri R. N. Rai , PresidingOfficer

PRESENT:

Sh. Gulshan Kr.-1st Party

Sh . Saket Sikri-2nd Party

In the matter of:

Shri Mohinder Singh,

C/o, Indian Bank Employees Union,

G-78 , 1st Floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001

Versus

The Assistant General Manager ,

Indian Bank.

World Trade Centre , BabarRoad, New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/183/ 2004 - IR (B - II ) Central Government,dt . 10-01-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service to the workman Shri Mohinder Singh , Ex. Clerk/ Shroff is just , fair and legal ? Ifnot , what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that the brief facts leading to the above reference are that the workman was 931G1 /07-18

1919

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

issued a charge sheet by the management 'vide order no. 20-IRD. F 239 : 1187 dated 15-04-2000 alleging as under:

That on 25-11-1999 , CSE received a sum of Rs. 43,500.00 from the account holder of SB A/c No. 18792, butdeposited only Rs . 33,500 on this account though he issued counterfoil to the customer for Rs . 43,500.00 . This shortage of Rs . 10,000.00 was made good by him in cash to the party subsequently.

That on 15-01-2000 , CSE received Rs . 20,000.00 in cash from account holder of SB A/ c . No. 18977 , but did not deposit this amount at all in this account till 18-01-2000, though he issued the counterfoil to the party forRs . 20,000.00 on 15-01-2000 itself.

That on 22-01-2000 at about 11.15 a.m. , CSE received a sum of Rs . 20,000.00 from account holder of SB A/c No. 19070 , but did not deposit the same in his account till 1.45 p.m. Only after persuasion by the party, he returned this amount to him in cash and destroyed the cash counterfoil.

That the CSE has borrowed money from the following customers of the bank, besides other customers , and are not repaying them despite their reminders/follow -up:

Sl. Name of the Party No.

Money borrowed (InRupees)

5,000 1. M/s . Pee Kay Printers

2,000 2. M/s . Rattan Chand OD A/ c.

10,000 3. Mr. Surender Kumar SB

1,500 4. Mr. Sabsen Kumar SB A/c :

That inhis report dated 17-08-2001 , Shri L. K. Mishra, the Inquiry Officer did not find the charge nos . 3 and 4 proved against the workman . Therefore , according to the Inquiry Officer , only charges 1 and 2 survived. Even regarding charge no . 2, the Inquiry Officer concluded thus inhisreport:

"In view of the above , I hold the allegation no . 2 proved against the CSE except that he issued the counterfoil to the party for Rs . 20,000 on 15-01-2000 itself. "

Thatthe above findings in respect of charge no. 2 is evidently inconsistent and self contradictory. Since the finding is that no counterfoil was issued by the workman on15-01-2000, it follows very clearly that the alleged amount ofRs. 20,000.00 was not received by the workman from the account holder of Account No. 18977 on 15-01-2000 . Therefore, the charge totally failed .

That it will be seen from the inquiry proceedings that the sum of Rs . 20,000.00 was in fact paid by the account holder on 15-01-2000 to Shri D. N. Thukral and not to the workman . Therefore , the very charge as framed by the 1920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

law was admitted by him in this report at page 3 in the following words :

Bank that a sum ofRs . 20,000.00 was paid to the workman by the account holder of SB A/c No. 18977 was factually wrong as it could not be proved at all that the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 was received by the workman from account holder of SB A/c No. 18977 on 15-01-2000.

"The DA has cited some legal case . Since the undersigned is not a legal practitioner, he is unable to make any comment in this regard . "

Itwill therefore, be evident beyond any doubt that the Inquiry Officer neither knew the basic elements of the law relating to disciplinary inquiries not even cared to understand and appreciate the judgments having direct bearing on the subject , brought to his notice . The inquiry against the workman having thus been conducted in ignorance of the law, it has to be deemed and treated as bad in law and vitiated .

That in addition to above , the charge sheet itself says that the said amount which belonged to the account holder and not to the bank , was deposited in the aforesaid account on 18-01-2000 . The amount ofRs . 20,000 , not being bank's money, was not and could not have been , misappropriated by the workman . Therefore , even theoretically, the charge as framed and levelled by the bank in the charge sheet dated 15-04-2000 is misconceived, incorrect and untenable in law.

That this will be further established by the finding dated 17-08-2001 recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect ofcharge No. 3 of the charge sheet :-

"The charge No. 3 was neither proved nor disproved ."

That the remaining chargesi.c . charge no. I is totally baseless and incorrect . The alleged complainant , Shri Ashok Pal , has denied that he had any complaint in the matter against the workman . Document MEX - 7 relied aponby the Inquiry Officer was written by a bank official and account holder was pressurized to sign the same. Shri Ashok Pal clearly stated during the inquiry that he did not know English . In this connection , the submissions of the workman made in para 3-6 of his written brief dated 15-10-2000 submitted to the Disciplinary Authority may kindly be perused . A copy of the written brief filed by the workman before the Disciplinary Authority is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure W- 3 .

It is simple that a charge is either proved or not proved: it can never be both. Therefore , the ignorance of the Inquiry Officer about the proper procedure for the conduct of the inquiry to be followed and the elementary rules of natural justice to be observed while conducting the inquiry is writ large. The inquiry against the workman was thus not carried out properly and he was not given fair and adequate opportunity of defence , is thus obvious and more than manifest .

That besides the above , the workman handed over to the Disciplinary Authority detailed submissions raising important legal issues in his letter dated 19-07-2002 . A copy of the same is annexed hereto an marked as Annexure- W-4.

That one of the important point made by the workman in the above letter was that the inquiry was vitiated and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. P. Gupta Vs. Delton Cable Pvt . Limited [ 1984 (48 ) FLR - 417 ] because the inquiry Oficer permitter! the management to brug in the inquiry two unlisted witnesses without any notice to the workman in gross violation of the basic postulate of the rule of law . The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the above case as under:--

That it is the basic principle of law that a person is deemed innocent till proved otherwise . Therefore , the burden ofproofof the charges levelled against an employee is obviously on the management . But the Inquiry Officer proceeded in the matter as if the charges levelled by the management against the workman are correct and it is for the charge-sheeted employce to prove his innocence . On page four of the inquiry report , the Inquiry Officer has observed that "No evidence was brought before me by the CSE to establish that MW1 was having any spoiled relation with CSE . In the absence of the same , there is no reason to disbelieve MEX - 1 , MEX - 2 , MEX -3 and MEX - 7 and other documents taken by MW1 and term them as false and fabricated. "

It will thus be clear from the above that the Inquiry Officer shifted the burden ofproof on the workman , thereby making a mockery of the rules of natural justice .

" It is also seen from the judgment of the Labour Court that the appellant was not given a list of management witnesses before the commencement of the domestic inquiry. In these circumstances , we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the Inquiry Officer has not acted properly in the proceeding and that he had not given full opportunity to the appellant as required by the law does not call for any interference .

That the fact that inquiry against the workman was conducted by the squiry Officer ignoring the established

That the Ld . Inquiry Officer has also accepted and taken on record MEX - 7, a pre - recorded statement even though its author never appeared before the Ld . Inquiry Officer to testify its authenticity and stand cross- examination by the defence. This was wholly illegal . In this connection, reliance is placed upon the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Sardar Bahadur [ 1972 ( 2) SCR 218 ] :

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

"Tribunals should observe rules of natural justice in the conduct of the inquiries, that is , no material can be relied upon to establish a contested fact unless spoken to by a witness who is subjected to cross- examination."

That finally, although Shri Ashok Pal, DW- 1 downed the contents of his previous statement on the ground that he did not know English and had no complaint against the workman, the Ld. Inquiry Officer, while acknowledging contradictions in statements of DW- 1 has insisted that his original statement even though denied subsequently by him during inquiry must be accepted and treated as correct. Nothing can be more perverse than this . Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Ld. Inquiry Officer holding the undersigned as guilty are wrong and liable to be rejected by this Hon'ble Tribunal . It has hardly necessary to emphasis that pre - recorded statement has no evidentiary value unless corroborated by the witness personally during the inquiry. As the DW- 1 positively denied his original statement during inquiry, no reliance could be placed on his original statement . This is what exactly has been done by the Ld. Inquiry Officer again showing without any doubt his ignorance of the procedure of conducting fair and proper inquiry.

That after his wrong and illegal compulsory retirement , the workman is totally unemployed and has not been able to secure any alternate job despite efforts made.

That the punishment of compulsory retirement from service imposed on the workman after a sham inquiry ignoring the basic rules of law, is neither fair nor legal . It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously hold:-

(a) that the inquiry held against the workman was bad in law and vitiated.

(b) that the resultant punishment of compulsory retirement was therefore , neither fair, nor just nor legal;

(c) that the workman is entitlement to reinstatement in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits ; and

(d) pass any other and/or further order as may be deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the reference as has been made by the appropriate government is bad in law and in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the same is not sustainable and liable to be quashed .

That once the services of the workman were terminatedafter adopting due process of law and the charge

1921

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

being of serious nature were duly proved in a properly conducted inquiry, the present reference is uncalled for .

That the inquiry against the workman was conducted. as per the procedure laid down in BPS entered into between Banks and Unions with active participation of workman and as such, the order passed after such, inquiry cannot be treated as unfair or illegal as alleged.

That all the contentions raised by the workman in the present reference were raised by him before the Inquiry Officer and were dealt with and as such he cannot be permitted to reagitate them.

That even otherwise, the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view of the matter and instead ofdismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement and in these circumstances there is no need for fresh adjudication of the matter and the claim is liable to be rejected on this ground aswell .

That the workman was charge sheeted by the Disciplinary Authority for misappropriation of Bank's funds based on the complaint filed against him. The charge of misappropriation ofBank funds is a very grave charge and once the same is proved there is no scope for further reference in this regard.

That while conduction the inquiry, the workman was given every opportunity to defend himself including the engagement of the Defence Assistant , cross - examination of witnesses and personal hearings etc. and as such it cannot be said that the , action of the management in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement to the workman is not proper. The same is just , fair and legal . In the circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Thatas per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been constantly held that high standards of honesty and integrity are expected from a Bank employee . who is a trustee of funds of all the depositors/creditors and once the employee indulges into fraudulent transactions and the same having been proved in a properly conducted inquiry, the punishment so imposed cannot be interfered with by courts in reviewing the administrative orders passed by the Bank. This has been held so in UCO Bank Vs. Hardev Singh judgment dated 18-02-2002 .

That not only the aforesaid the orders passed by the management are just legal and proper in view of the fact thatCVC and RBI have throughout been advising the public sector banks to take stern action against employees who committed fraud/ misappropriation of funds . In case such acts of employee are treated with lenient view, it will leadto much more serious frauds by employees in future , thereby causing financial loss and damage to the reputation of the bank. In these circumstances the order passed by AppellateAuthority is in accordance with law as laid down 1922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] by the court and hence the claim of the workman deserves to be dismissed.

any complaint is concerned , it is rot necessary for the bank to initiate action only when any complaint is filed but when on record it is seen that certain acts of misconduct prejudicial to the interest of bank have been committed by the employee, the Bank is within its rights to initiate actions as per law.

Thatwhile conducting the disciplinary proceedings against workman, proper procedure has been followed and misconduct committed by the workman having been proved and further the Appellate Authority reducing the punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement , there is no force in the reference . The scope and powers in the disciplinary proceedings against an employee have already been laid down in judgment JT 2005 ( 8 ) SC - 125 and the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment.

That it is submitted that all the documents and submissions submittedby the workman were duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority at the time of passing the order . The order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority was based on dispassionate and independent explanation and appreciation of entirely of facts and evidence on records relating to malpractices and misappropriation indulged in by the petitioner /workman .

Thatthere is no inconsistency in the findings or the same being self contradictory as alleged. It is submitted that it was proved in the inquiry that the workman was guilty of fraudulent transactions, not depositing the money tendered to him by customers then and there . doing acts prejudicial to the interest of Bank and breathing rules of business by misusing his position as cashier in bank and as such it cannot be said that the same were not proved against him.

That the Inquiry Officer gave adequate opportunities to both the partics to lead their respective evidence . Proper procedure has been adopted in the inquiry. The workman was also given the assistance to Defence and he actively participated in the inquiry and as such he cannot claim that the inquiry is vitiated The workman/defence assistant was given opportunities in the inquiry to explain the evidence against him and were allowed to cross - examine these witnesses adduced by the management . No prejudice has been caused to the workman -petitioner in this regard as opportunities in the inquiry were given to Defence Assistantto cross- examine the witnesses. The judgment cited by the workman is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

That it is submitted that the workman is trying to hoodwink the issue to find out as escape route by referring to the inquiry proceedings in which the charges were duly proved against the workman after following due process of law in this respect. It was proved beyond doubt in the departmental inquiry that the petitioner workman received the cash ofRs . 20,000 from SB Account holder of bank on 15-01-2000. Assuming but not admitting that he has not issued counterfoil , he ought to have remitted the cash to the Bank on 16-01-2000 ( ic ) the next working day, but he has chosen to remit cash on 18-01-2000 only after three days . The charges once proved , it is submitted, that this Hon'ble Tribunal may not find it appropriate to interfere with the same and reject the reference inlimine .

That the inquiry was conducted in its true sense and spirit by following due procedure in which workman/ defence assistant have actively participated . Further it is submitted that as per settled principles of law and various pronouncements in this respect , strict rules of evidence as applicable in a court oflaw cannot be extended to a domestic inquiry. It is also denied that the Inquiry Officer did not know the basic elements of law relating to the disciplinary inquiry. In the present case . Inquiry Officer afforded all reasonable opportunities to delinquent employee and a bona fide inquiry was held . The report of Inquiry Officer is a reasoned report , taking into account all evidences and records . The Inquiry Officer has his report after considering all the aspects and the submissions made by the parties and as such it cannot be said to be vitiated on the false allegations of the workman .

That it is submitted that the bank being a public sector financial institution and a trustee of such accounts is entitled to take action against the erring employee and the fact after misappropriation the said amount was deposited back by the workman will not mitigate the charge . The petitioner employce had misused the position of cashier in respondent bank for personal , pecuniary gains and acted prejudicially to the interest of bank and damaged its reputation . It is denied that the charges framed in the charge sheet dated 15-04-2000 are misconceived and untenable .

That the charges as framed were duly proved in a proper inquiry conducted by following the principles of natural justice. The contentions raised by the petitioner as regards to English knowledge of Ashok Pal were well addressed by Inquiry Officer ( and the findings of Inquiry Officer are placed Mxt - 1 ) . As far as the contention of the workman with respect to denial by Shri Ashok Pal of lodging

That it is submitted that as far as the contention with respect to the recording by the Inquiry Officer regarding para 3 being neither proved nor disproved, cannot be interpreted that the Inquiry Officer was ignorant of the procedure for conducting the inquiry. It pertains to charge no. 3 only. It is submitted that the interpretation of proved nor disproved is that the charge was not fully proved and merely on this it cannot be said that there was violation of rules of natural justice to be observed in the inquiry. It is further denied that the workman was not given fair and 1923

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

wouldbe impaired. The order of compulsory retirement is totallyjust, proper and legal in the circumstances of the case. It is also denied that the workman is unemployed after the orders passed by the management.

adequate opportunity to defend himself. Abare perusal of the inquiry report would show that the inquiry officer had gone into all the charges and evidence led and arguments in this behalf. There was consideration of facts and Gecision was arrived at after consideration of evidence by adhering to the rules of natural justice and as such, it canno, be said that there is any lapse or lacuna in the inquiry.

That it is not denied by the workman that as a cashier in a bank, which is a public financial institution he has to discharge his duties with care, caution and utmost integrity.

That the petitioner being a cashier/custodian ofcash neglected his primary duty and indulged in fraudulent practice and misappropriated bank's money for pecuniary gains and thus proved himself to be an irresponsible, unreliable and untrustworthy employee ofthe bank.

That the respondent crave leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to file any additional counter, alter, amend and modify counter statement as justice requires . That the prayer clause istotallymisconceived . The workman is not entitled toany relief.

That the management had fully discharged the burdenofproofofproving the charges against the workman and further the Inquiry Officer has dealt with in detail all the charges as framed and witnesses /documents produced byboth the parties. It is denied that Inquiry Officer shifted the burden on the workman at any point of time. As held by courts , in service law, there is no such thing as an. absolute burden of proof always lying on the department in departmental inquiry. It depends upon the nature of charges /explanation. The workman cannot claim any right to commit fraud during the course ofemployment.

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

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

That the contentions of the petitioner that the burden of proof in Disciplinary proceedings lies with the management etc. are denied. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court on several occasions bad held that there is no such thing as an absolute burden of proof lies upon the management in Disciplinary proceedings. The burden of proof depends upon the nature of explanation, nature of charges in each individual case . However, in the present case , the charges being proved beyond all probabilities , the petitioners' contentions are denied and needs to be dismissed as not correct.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the workman that, on 15-11-1999 the CSE deposited Rs. 33,500 whereas he issued counterfoil to the tune of Rs. 43,500. It has been also alleged that the workman received an amount of Rs. 20,000 on 15-01-2000 from account holder of SB A/c . 18977 but he did not deposit the amount on the same day. He deposited it on 18-01-2000, after 3 days of the receipt of the amount ofRs . 20,000.

That it is submitted that the documents filed by the parties are considered by the Inquiry Officer as per procedure and since on the other, documents , the name and address written by the DW- 1 shows the same pattern ofhandwriting ofDW- 1 on MEX-7 and further it has been observed by the Inquiry Officer that suggest that it is written by a person who has sufficient knowledge of English, necessary to perform his day to day banking requirements. Further the Inquiry Officer has also come to the conclusion the contention that the charge sheeted employee is not aware of the contents of MEX- 7 does not appear to be true, and as such it cannot be said that the Inquiry Officer has not dealt with these documents properly. Thejudgments cited by the workman are not applicable in the facts of the present case .

Ithas been further alleged that this workman received Rs . 20,000 from the account holder of SB A/ c. No. 19070 but he did not deposit the same in his account till 1.45 PM. Only after pursuation by the party this amount was returned incash to the account holder concerned and was destroyed the counterfoil . The workman has received letter from M/s . Pee Kay Printers of Rs . 5,000, M/s . Ratan Chand of Rs. 2,000, Mr. Surinder Kumar of Rs . 10,000 and from Sabsen Kumar ofRs . 1,500. The money taken by the workman on loanhas not been returned to the above customers despite their several reminders/follow up .

That the Inquiry Officer has dealt with the same in detail in the inquiry proceedings .

Itwas further submitted that MW1 has stated in his cross that the workman was punished for charge no . 1 and 2 whereas the Appellate Authority has held that punishment was imposed on the workman on charge no. 1 only.

My attention was drawn to AIR 1994-SC-853 as under:

"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice. between the parties. One, who comes to the court , That the charges are very serious in nature. The petitioner was a cashier in the bank. He not only failed to remit/deposit the entire money given by customers to their credit and into bank in time , but also misused his position for personal gains . In Union of India Vs. Vishwa Mohan 1998 (4) SCC 310 Supreme Court held that in banking business absolute devotion , diligence and integrity are required of employee otherwise the confidence of public 1924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

opportunity of cross -examination has been given by the management.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman has committed temporary embezzlement . He embezzled Rs . 10,000 on 15-11-1999 and he made payment of cash to subside the concerned customer.

must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not , process of the court is being abused . Property -grabbers, tax-evaders , bank- loan -dodger and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal - gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has not right to approach the court."

It was further submitted that the workman received Rs . 20,000 in cash from the account holder of SB A/ c . No. 18977 but he did not deposit this amount on that day. Hedeposited it on 18-01-2000 , so he temporarily embezzled Rs . 20,000 for atleast 3 days .

Itwas further submitted that on 21-01-2000 he received an amount of Rs . 20,000 from the account holder ofSB A/ c No. 19070 but he did not deposit the same in his account till 1.45 PM. On pursuation of the party the workman returned the amount and destroyed the counterfoil .

It was submitted that DW1 disowned his alleged statement recorded by the bank's Investigating Officer (MEX-7) , the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer that MEX -7 was true and the statement given by Mr. Ashok Pal personally in the inquiry is wrong , is absolutely perverse. The Inquiry Officer has to go by the material placed on record before him during the inquiry and not his ipse - dixt or what was collected by the management on the back of the workman earlier.

Itwas further submitted that knowing the weakness of the case the management did not produce the Inquiry Officerbefore the Court and produced one Mr. V. Raman who was not posted in the branch at the time of incident nor he has any personal knowledge of the charges levelled against the workman.

Itwas further submitted that all the witnesses have been cross examined by the defence representative . The management examined six witnesses viz . MW1 Shri S. K. Soni , Sr. Manager, Regional Office , New Delhi , MW2 , Shri A. Vishwanathan , Sr. Manager, Karol Bagh , MW3 , Mrs. Ranbir Bharti , Special Assistant, Karol Bagh Branch, MW4, Madan Lal , Clerk/ Shroff, Karol Bagh Branch, MW5 , Shri Ram Surat Yadav and MW6, Shri D. N. Thukral , Sr. Manager, Regional Office , Chandigarh .

Itwas further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has placed the burden ofthe proof on the workman instead of on the management which is against the principles of natural justice . The management has to prove its case on the basis of its own evidence. It cannot be said that the workmanhas to prove that he has not embezzled any money.

Itwas further submitted that the 2 unlisted witnesses were produced only to identify the management exhibits only. They did not depose anything else. The workman was afforded time of 1 hour for cross- examination . The Inquiry Officer further stated that the defence assistant did not seek any time from him for cross all the unlisted witnesses . The defence assistant observed that the documents identified by the unlisted witnesses are partly admitted bythem . There is no fun in cross examining them.

It was further submitted that the counterfoil of pay in slip dated 25-11-1999 for Rs . 43,500 (Mex -4 ) by the management as counterfoil allegedly issued by the workman is not signed by any official or workman . Mr. Ashok Pal has denied that Mex -4 was issued to him by the workman . It isalso admitted that Mex- 4 does not bear the signature of ShroffOfficer or Assistant Branch Manager.

The management cannot be confined to examine the witnesses listed. The witnesses may be changed and added. The material thing is that the workman should be given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the unlisted witnesses . It is quite apparent from the proceedings that no application has been given to the Inquiry Officer to defer the cross - examination of the unlisted witnesses . So it cannot be said that no opportunity was given to the defence assistant to cross examine the unlisted witnesses . There appears to be no merit in the contention that the Inquiry Officer did not permit the defence assistant to cross examine the unlisted witnesses .

Itwas further submitted that both, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have ignored the gross irregularity committed by the Inquiry Officer in allowing the 2 unlisted witnesses of the management and the refusal of the Inquiry Officer to permit the defence assistant to cross examine the said unlisted witnesses at the end of the evidence . The Inquiry Officer allowed the Presenting Officer to produce the said unlisted witnesses , he unreasonably disallowed the request of the defence to recall and cross examine the unlisted witnesses . Unfair treatment by the management is writ large and intervention of the this Tribunal is required to undo injustice .

That the defence also examined 2 unlisted witnesses . The defence is not bound to disclose the name of the witnesses to be examined by it whereas the management was duly bound to produce all the listed witnesses . No

It was further submitted that the complainant Shri Ashok Pal gave the statement alleging the misappropriation of Rs . 10,000 by the workman . It was recorded by MW1 ( page 1 of Mex - 1 ) and signed by DW1 (Mex-7) , Shri Ashok Pal has disowned the contents of his previous statement on the plea that he does not know English.

1925

भारत का राजपत्र मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

statement of CSE during the preliminary investigation. Mr. S. K. Soni , Sr. Manager has been examined as MW1 during the inquiry proceedings . He has recorded the statement ofthe workman. It is not denied that Shri S. K. Soni, Sr. Manager has not recorded the statement of the CSE inpreliminary investigation. His credibility has not beenchallenged while his evidence was taken.

MW1 has conducted preliminary investigation and he has been produced even in the inquiry. He has deposed before the Inquiry Officer. He has filed the documents of his preliminary investigation, the copy of the same has been supplied to the workman. So the documents of preliminary investigation have become material in the inquiry as well , as MWI has recorded preliminary investigation and he has deposed before the Inquiry Officer also. His examination -in-chief has gone unrebutted, so reliance can be placed even on the documents ofpreliminary investigation . They have become part and parcel of the inquiryproceedings also . The examination - in -chiefofMWI has bestowed authenticity to the documents of preliminary investigation also.

From perusal of the Mex-4 and Mex-7 it becomes quite obvious that address of DW1 has been written by DW1 in English, so the statement of DW1 that he is not well versed inEnglish language is not believable . It appears that DW1 was won over by the workman, so he has deposed that he was not well versed in English language and he has not signed page 1 of Mex-7 . The charges can be held proved even on circumstantial evidence . It cannot be said that MW1 is interested or partition witness and he has recorded the statement of DW.1 falsely and he has put the signature of DW1 himself on Mex-7. Shri Ashok Pal was aggrieved, so he made a complaint that Rs. 10,000 givenby him to the workman has not been deposited . There is no allegation that MW1 bas any spoiled relationship with the workman, so Mex- 1 , 2, 3 and Mex- 7 and other documents taken by MW1 cannot be said to be false and fabricated. MW1 was made available for cross examination but the defencedid not cross examine him. The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the circumstances under which Mex 1 to 3 and Mex- 7 have been prepared. MW1 has not been cross examined , so the statement given by MW1 is admissible in evidence . If MW1 was prejudiced, the defence assistant should have cross, examined him but cross examination of MW1 was evaded deliberately.

Itwas further submitted that the CSE has taken the plea that the notes of Rs . 10,000 were mutilated notes, so he did not deposit the same . Notes are checked and verified when they are offered for deposit . In case the notes were found mutilated it was the duty of the CSE to bring it to the knowledge ofthe Officers of the bank .

The management has examined 6 witnesses and all the 6 witnesses have been made available to the CSE for .... cross examination. In case the witnesses have not been cross examined, the plea of observance of natural justice cannot be taken before the Tribunal . All the documents have been made available to the workman . Most of the witnesses have been cross examined by the defence assistant of the workman. So it cannot be said that sufficient opporttinity has not been provided to the workman. The DA didnot cross examine the two witnesses intentionally.

The Tribunal has no right to consider the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence. It is settled law that in departmental inquiry charge can be held proved on a single testimony of the department. In the instant case six witnesses have been examined.

The Inquiry Officer has found charge no . 1 proved against the CSE in full. Charge No. 2 was also found proved against the CSE except the issuance of the counterfoil to ! the party for Rs . 20,000 on 15-01-2000. Charge No. 3was found neither proved nor disproved, Charge, No. 4 was found not proved. So the Inquiry Officer has found charge no. 1 fully proved whereas charge no . 2 is proved but the issuance of counterfoil is not proved. Charge no. 2 is partly proved.

The law regarding evidence in inquiry has been summarizedby theBench of 3 Judges in 1997 Lab IC 845. It has been held as under:----

The CSE has admitted before the Investigating Officer that he forgot to deposit the cash with the bank of Rs . 20,000 . He has further admitted that he has issued the counterfoil ofRs . 43,500. He has also admitted that he has paid back Rs . 20,000 after encashing the NSCs . The workmanhas attached Mex-4 ( 1 page) and Mex- 3 (6 pages) . These are the photocopies of true copies attached with the writtenargument of the workman

to "In a domestic inquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply.Ail materials which are logically probative for aprudent mind are permissible.There is no allegory tohearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. The departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence Act."

From perusal ofthe records it becomes quite obvious that the CSE received Rs . 20,000 on 15-01-2000 from the account holder of SB A/c . No. 18977 and deposited it on 18-01-2000 . He has issued counterfoil of Rs . 43,500 as has beenadmitted by him in the preliminary investigation. It appears that the Inquiry Officer has based his findings on circumstantial evidence also . MW1 has recorded the

"The sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding bya domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence ofany evidence in support of a finding is certainly 1926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record . " "An Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in characterizing the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry as perverse unless it can be shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence , or is entirely opposed to the whole body of the evidence adduced before it . In a domestic inquiry once a conclusion is deduced from the evidence , it is not permissible to assail that conclusion even though it ispossible for some other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence . There is also no rule of evidence which lays down that the evidence of a solitary witness cannot be relied upon ormerely because there is only a solitary witness in support of the charge , no conclusion can be based upon it even though the evidence of that witness is acceptable as true . "

It has been held in this case that in domestic inquiry evidence of a solitary witness is sufficient to hold the chargesproved.

Ithasbeenheld in 2001 (89) FLR 427 as under : - " It is well settled that a conclusion or a finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interfered with by the court only when there is no material for the said conclusion; or that on the materials , the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. "

Itbecomes obvious from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court can interfere only when there is no material on record . In the instant case there is sufficient material . In a departmental inquiry the standard ofcriminal trial is not required and technical rules ofevidence are not attracted . Disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial . The scope of inquiry is entirely different from that of the criminal trial in which the chargesheet is required to be proved beyond doubt . In domestic inquiries preponderance ofprobability and some material on record are sufficient to reach the conclusion against the delinquent employee.

It is settled law that a Court or Tribunal on its own views cannot set aside the findings of the Inquiry Officer . I have perused the records carefully and thoroughly. The findings of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are not perverse . The findings are based on material placed on records . It cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence.

Ithas been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between B. C. Chaturvedi and Union of India and Ors . with Union of India and Anr . and B. C. Chaturvedi as under :-

"The Court or Tribunal in its power ofjudicial review doesnot act as an appellate authority to re - appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding on the evidence-Tribunal held not justified

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. "

It has been further held as under :-

"Adequacy of evidence or reliablility of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before Court/ Tribunal . "

"The High Court/Tribunal , while exercising the power ofjudicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal . " In the instant case the management has examined 6 witnesses and ample opportunity has been provided to cross examine all the witnesses . The witnesses have been cross examined. In domestic inquiry guilt can be proved on circumstantial evidence. The workman deposited money received at 11.30 A.M. at 1.45 P.M. after the pressure ofthe party concerred and he has torn the deposit slip . He has deposited Rs . 33,500 whereas he has realized Rs . 43,500 . The Inquiry Officer has kept in mind this circumstances also. There is no perversity of either Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. Another view of this matter cannot be taken by the Court or Tribunal . Inquiry is fair. It is not vitiated. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Punishment is also proportionate.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Indian Bank in awarding the punishment of compulsory retirement from service to the workman Shri Mohinder Singh , Ex. Clerk/ Shroff is just, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

Award is given accordingly.

Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for necessary action at their end.

Date: 28-02-2007.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 932.-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, बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2003 , 54/2003 एवं 55/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-03-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 / 105/2003- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) , एल-12011/99/2003- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) , एल-12011/104/2003- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 1927

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 8th March, 2007 S.O. 932. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2003 , 54/2003 and 55/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workman, received bythe Central Government on 07-03-2007.

[No. L- 12011/ 105/2003 -IR(B- II) ,

L-12011/99 /2003 - IR(B- II), L-12011/104/2003 - IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 28th February, 2007

PRESENT:

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 53/2003

IPARTY:

The General Secretary,

Canara Bank Workers Union, Anand Plaza, Anand Rao Circle , Bangalore-560009.

ΠPARTY :

The Deputy General Manager,

CanaraBank,

Disciplinary Action Cell, CircleOffice, No. 86 , M. G. Road, Bangalore-560001 .

C. R. No. 54/2003

IPARTY :

TheGeneral Secretary,

Canara Bank Workers Union, Anand Plaza, Anand Rao Circle , Bangalore-560009.

IPARTY :

The Deputy General Manager,

CanaraBank,

Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office , No. 86 , M. G. Road, Bangalore-560001 .

931 Gl/07-19

C. R. No. 55/2003-

IPARTY:

TheGeneral Secretary,

CanaraBank Workers Union, Anand Plaza, Anand Rao Circle , Bangalore-560009.

IPARTY :

The DeputyGeneral Manager,

CanaraBank,

Disciplinary Action Cell, Circle Office, No. 86 , M. G. Road, Bangalore-560001.

COMMON AWARD

1. The Central Govenment by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order Nos . L - 12011 / 104/2003 - IR (B - II ) , L-12011/99/2003 - IR(B -II) dated 18th September 2003 and No. L- 12011 /105/2003 - IR (B- II) dated 23rd September , 2003 for adjudication on the following schedule :-

The schedule (CR 53/2003)

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in imposing the punishment ofbringing down to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 16-5-2001 and 25-4-2001 upon Shri S. Nagaraj is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

The schedule ( CR 54/2003)

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in imposing the punishment ofBringing down to lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect upon Shri K. Satish Pai is legal andjustified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

Schedule ( CR 55/2003)

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in imposing the punishment of Bringing down to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect upon Shri B. Ramdas Bhat is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "

2. All these three cases are taken up altogther for disposal involving common question of facts and law for the purpose of convenience to avoid overlapping in findings.

3.A charge sheet dated 22-07-2002 was issued to the first party workman Shri S. Nagaraj in C. R. No. 53/03 in the following terms :-

1928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

Charge Sheet

You have been working as Clerk at Security Cell GA wing , H, O.. Bangalore since 3-8-1990 . On 20-7-2000, around 12.45 P.M. you were found to be distributing pamphlets under the guise ofthe circular 7/2000 dated 20-7-2000 . In the name of Canara Bank Workers Union, containing the following highly derogatory, objectionate and unwarranted , allegations against the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank and that of his office and other superiors with the sole and malafide intention to tarnish the image and reputation of the authoritics placed over you .

"In that case did Shri R. J. Kamath order of plead with Shri Prakash Mallya ? Has the position of the C. M. D. , Shri R. J. Kamath has become so pathetic , that he has to plead with a DGM in his secretariat. Has he lost his moral authority ? As he is having more weaknesses than strength ? Therefore, we sought an appointment with Shri R. J. Kamath to know directly from the horse's mouth "

By releasing and distributing these pamphlets you have purposely and with malafide intentions sought to show our Chairman and Managing Director in poor light and belittle his office and status . The tone and tenor used in the pamphlet were derogatory and defamatory in nature and have damaged the reputation of the bank and its Chairman and Managing Director and that of his office . We have reasons to believe that you have resorted to such acts and disorderly conduct solely because a transfer demand made by you for an employce was not considered favourably.

Further, the pamphlets were distributed by you during office hours by remaining away from your duties in utter disregard in the laid down rules of the Bank .

By your above acts , you have committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI , Regulation 34d ) and ( k ) of the Canara Bank Service Code . Your above action being prejudicial to the interest of the bank , you have also committed gross misconduct within the meaning Chapter XI , Regulations ( m ) of the Canara Bank Service Code . " 4. A charge sheet dated 11-10-2000 was issued to the first party workman . Shri K. Satish Pai in C. R. No. 54/03 in the following terms:

Charge Sheet

"You have been working as a Clerk at our R & L Section ( Recovery ) . Circle Office , Bangalore since 19-1-1996.

It is reported that on 25-7-2000 , you cameto the section at 10.00 A.M. and signed the Attendance Register . Subsequently you left the seat without

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] permission and resorted to distributing the circular No. 8/2000 dated 25-7-2000 issued by Canara Bank workers Union. After distributing the said circular in various sections of the Circle Office, during office hours , you have procured the Attendance Register from the Divisional Manager's cabin through the sub staff of the Section and struck off your signature for 25-7-2000 without any authority or permission and written C. L. But you have not submitted any C. L. application for the day's absence . You have resorted to the act of distributing the Union Circular on 25-7-2000 during office hours in violation of the Service Regulations and thereby caused disturbance to the discharge of official duties by the Staffworking in the Circle Office . You have also on your own unauthorisedly meddled with the attendance register of the Section , by striking off your signature for 25-7-2000 and writing C. L. without any authority or permission from the Section in charge.

The investigation conducted has also revealed that on carlier occasions also you had distributed the circulars under the guise of Canara Bank Workers Union . One such circular is Circular No. 7/2000 dated 20-7-2000 which contains the following highly derogatory , objectionable and unwarranted allegations against the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank and that of his office and other Executives with the sole and malafide intention to cause damage and to tarnish the image and reputation of the bank and its authorities with ulterior motives .

"In that case did Shri R. J. Kamath order or plead with Shri Prakash Mallya ? Has the position of the CMD, Shri R. J. Kamath has become so pathetic, that he has to plead with a DGM in his secretariat . Has he lost his moral authority ? As he is having more weaknesses than strengths ? Therefore , we sought an appointment with Shri R. J. Kamath to know directly from the horse's mouth "

By distributing the above circular , you have purposely and with malafide intentions sought to show our Chairman and Managing Director in poor light and belittle his office and status . The tone and tenor used in the pamphlet were derogatory and defamatory in nature and have damaged the reputation of the bank and its Chairman and Managing Director and that of his office.

An explanation was called for from you in the matter by our staff section ( W) Circle Office , Bangalore vide their letter dated 25-7-2000 and the reply submitted by you vide your letter dated 5-8-2000 is neither convincing nor satisfactory.

By your above acts , you have contravened Regulation 2 ( A) ( ii ) of Chapter XI of Canara Bank 1929 [भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

Service Code and thereby committed Gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation(3 ) Clause (j ) of Canara Bank Service Code .

By your above acts , you have committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI , Regulation 3 (d) , k and (k) ofthe Canara Bank Service Code.

Further your above actions being prejudicial to the interests of the bank , you have also committed gross misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI Regulation 3 , Clause (m) of Canara Bank Service Code."

Your above action being prejudicial to the interest of the bank , you have also committed gross misconduct within the meaning Chapter XI , Regulations 3 ( m) of CanaraBank Service Code.

5.Similarly, a charge sheet dated 22-07-2000 came to be issued to the first party workman, Shri B. Ram Das Bhat in C. R. No. 55/03 in the following terms:

Chargesheet

You have been working as Special Assistant at Records and Tappal Section, GA Wing , H. O. Bangalore since 27-2-1989 . On 20-7-2000 around 11.30 A.M. you were found to be distributing pamphlets under the guise of the circular 7/2000 dated 20-7-2000, in the name of Canara Bank Workers Union, containing the following highly derogatory, objectionable and unwarranted allegations against the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank and that of his office and other superiors with the sole and malafide intention to tarnish the image and reputation of the authorities place over you .

"In that case did Shri R. J. Kamath order or plead with Shri Prakash Mallya ? Has the position of the CMD, Shri R. J. Kamath has become so pathetic , that he has toplead with a DGM in his secretariat. Has he lost his moral authority ? As he is having more weaknesses than strengths ? Therefore, we sought anappointment with Shri R. J. Kamath to know directly from the horse's mouth" .

6. There being no reply or explanation given/ offered by these workmen, the management thought of conducting Domestic Enquiries against all of them and accordingly enquiries were conducted against them affording opportunity to them to participate and defend themselves . They appeared before the enquiry officer in separate enquiries and after conclusion of the Domestic Enquiries , Enquiry Officers in all these three cases submitted their findings . Learned Enquiry Officer Shri K. L. Shankar Narayana Rao who held enquiry separately against the workmen Shri B. Ram Das Bhat and Shri S. Nagaraj held them guilty ofthe charges of misconduct as leveled in the charge sheets against them . In the case of the workmen, Shri Satish Pai one Shri V. G. Tagore held the enquiry and submitted his findings holding the workman guilty of the charges Nos . 1 and 3 with the finding that charge No. 2 against the workman of tampering the attendance register was not proved. The copies of those enquiry findings were made available to the first party workmen giving them opportunity to offer their comments , thereon, and when they failed to offer their explanations , the Disciplinary Authority in all the three cases proposed the punishments against the workmen of bringing down to a lower stage in time scale of pay by two stages with cumulative effect and thenproposed punishments were communicated to all the three workmen affording them an opportunity of hearing and it is after hearing them during the course of personal hearing those punishment orders were confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority. All these three workmen -approached the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority in the cases of the workmen Shri Satish Pai and Shri Ram Das Bhatt allowed the appeals in part modifying the punishment order by bringing down to a lower stage in time scale of pay by one stage with cumulative effect and whereas , in the case of Shri Nagaraj the punishment order passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed without any modification.

Further, the pamphlets were distributed by you during office hours by remaining away from your duties in utter disregard in the laid down rules ofthe Bank.

7. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority all these three workmen appears to have raised the dispute before the conciliation officer concerned and those disputes havingbeen resulted into failure reports made to the Govt . of India, the present references have been made to this tribunal for adjudication of the points in dispute .

Moreover, you have abetted and instigated an outsider/ retired employee of the bank to make/issue the said pamphlets containing unwarranted , derogatory andwild allegations against the Chairman and Managing Director and that ofhis office of the Bank.

8.TheGeneral Secretary, Canara Bank Workers Union , Bangalore who represented in all these three cases got 1930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

superiors with the sole and mala fide intention to tarnish the image and reputation of the authorities being proved during the course of enquiry, it is not permissible for the first party workmen now to contend that by their above said act they have not committed any misconduct as leveled in the charge sheets .

filed separate claim statements before this tribunal by the respective workmen . All of them have challenged the enquiry proceedings alleging that they have been conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and that the enquiry findings submitted by the enquiry officer suffered from perversity and that the impugned punishment order passed against them are unjust and illegal .

9. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the partieswith regard to the validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings, this tribunal on 23-9-2004 framed the following Preliminary Issue separately in all the three cases :

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

10. On 14-12-2005 , when the matter came up for hearing , the learned counsel Shri S. Ramesh representing all these three workmen filed separate memos conceding the fairness of the DE with a request to permit him to lead evidence on the other issues if any, and to argue the case on perversity of the findings as well as justification ofthe punishment order : There being no objection on the part of the Learned Counsel for the management , this tribunal accordingly passed an order holding that the Domestic Enquiries held against these workmen were fair and proper and the matter came to be posted for arguments on merits . I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and the matter is posted this day for award. 1

11. Learned Counsel , Shri S. Ramesh in his arguments raised only one point raising the contention that in the act of distribution of circulars /pamphlets by these workmen , there has been absolutely no disturbance or obstructions in the duties being discharged by the bank staff and therefore, the workmen cannot be found guilty of the charges of misconduct leveled against them, only because they happened to have distributed the circulars/pamphlets during the course of office hours of the bank . Learned counsel , in this regard cited a ruling reported in AIR 1990 SC page 1- B . R. Singh and others Vs. Union of India .

12. Whereas , Learned, counsel for the Management , Shri TRKP argued that the very fact that the first party workmen distributed the circulars/ pamphlets during the office hours , visiting the bank staff members at their respective sections and departments must lead to an inference that there was disturbances and obstructions in the discharge of duties by the staff of the bank and therefore , it cannot be said that there was no misconduct as such committed by the workmen. He cited a ruling reported in 2005 (6 ) AIR Kar Page 635 in support of his arguments that the act of the first party distributing the circular/ pamphlets containing the highly derogatory, objectionable and unwarranted allegations against the Chairman/Managing Director of the bank and other

13. After having gone through the records , more particularly, the evidence brought out during the course of enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer, I must agree with the arguments advanced for the management. As noted above, in the case of Mr. Nagaraj and Shri Bhatt, the charges which are common have been very much proved by sufficient and legal evidence and in the case of Mr. Satish Pai as noted above , the first and third charge ofdistribution of circulars /pamphlets containing the above said allegations also have been proved by sufficient , legal and satisfactory oral as well as documentary evidence . Now, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the first party workmen is that in the above said act of the first party workmen there has been absolutely no loss much less financial loss caused to the management bank and that there was also no disturbance or obstruction in the duties being discharged by the bank staff in receiving those circulars / pamphlets during office hours . Learned Counsel did not argue on any other point much less on the point as to whether the findings of the enquiry officers suffered from any perversity. He further submitted that the impugned punishments imposed upon the first party workmen are disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by them particularly, in view of the fact that they were not the authors or signatories to those circulars/ pamphlets distributed by them and that on account of the punishments they have suffcred heavy financial loss and hardship . He requested this tribunal to take lenient view in this regard . I find absolutely no substance in his contention that the aforesaid act of the first party workmen did not affect the smooth working of the management bank not disturbing the bank staff in discharging their duties . When, the purpose of the first party workmen in distributing the circulars /pamphlets was to see that all the bank staff members must read them and when in the natural course the staff members in their anxiety to know what those papers contained are to read them keeping aside the job on their hand, in the meanwhile, it cannot be said that those staff members have not been disturbed on obstructed in discharging of their duties as admittedly, those circulars / pamphlets came to be issued during the office hours. Therefore , above said contention raised on behalf of the first party workmen deserves no merit . The Principles laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case cited on behalf of the first party workmen are not at all applicable to the facts of the cases on hand. It is not understandable as to how those principles laid down in the aforesaid case will be coming to the help of the first party workmen. They are the principle laid down to the 1931 [भाग II- खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

19/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2007 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/50/2000 - आई आर ( बी:- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 8th March, 2007.

S.O. 983. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/2005) 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 Punjab National Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 7-3-2007.

[No. L- 12012/50/2000-IR(B- II)] RAJINDERKUMAR, Desk, Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJINDRA PLACE , NEWDELHI

R.N. Rai , Presiding Officer

L.D. No. 19/2005

PRESENT:

Sh. N.S. Bhati

Ist Party

Sh. Ashwani Kr. Sharma

2nd Party

IN THE MATTER OF :

facts and circumstances of the case altogether different having absolutely no similarity to the facts and points of law involved in the present case. As far as the principle laid down by his Lordship of our Hon'ble High Court cited onbehalf of the management, it can be very well found that the dismissal order passed against the workman concerned was confirmedby our Hon'ble High Court when the charges of misconduct leveled against the workman that he addressed a small gathering of employees making the derogatory remarks was proved against him. In the instant casealso those circulars/pamphlets which have been issued by the first party workmen have contained derogatory remarks , as noted above . However , in the instant case those are not the remarks passed by the first party workmen as admittedly they were not the authors or signatories to the circulars/pamphlets in question. The first party workmen in these cases are to be held responsible for the misconducts they have committed in distributing the circulars/pamphlets having such derogatory remarks , that too, during the office hours . However, keeping in view the fact that all these three workmen were the union leaders and responsible office bearers of the union and have committedtheact of distributing the circular /pamphlets in their anxiety to seek redressal of certain remedies concerning their colleagues and in view of the fact that the punishment order lowering the pay scale with cumulative effect would result into heavy financial loss to the workmen through out their tenure of service , it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if the impugned punishment order passed against them ofbringing down their pay scale by two stages with cumulative effects is to be modified with a specific period of7 years from the date of passing of the impugned punishment order by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the following award:

Shri Phool Singh,

AWARD

S/o Shri Mogi Ram, R/o B -422 , PandavNagar,

J.J. Colony,

NewDelhi- 110008

Versus

TheAssistant General Manager,

Punjab National Bank,

The impugned punishment order passed against the firstparty workmen shall hold good for a period of seven years from the respective dates ofpunishment orders passed against them without cumulative effect . Keep a copy of the Award in CR. Nos . 54/2003 and 55/2003 . No costs .

Connaught Circus ,

New Delhi -110001

AWARD

(Dictated to PA, transcribed by her , corrected and signed by me on 28th February, 2007).

A. R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/50/ 2000- FR (B- II) Central Government Dt. 25-2-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.

नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च , 2007

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, E.C.E. House, Connaught Circus , New Delhi in terminating the services ofShri Phool Singh , Ex. Sweeper (Temporary) is just, fair and legal ? If not, what reliefhe is entitled to and from which date?" का.आ. 933.- 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 औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

regard is attached as Annexure V). At this stage denying the petitioner to join the dutics is unfair, unjust, unconstitutional , illegal , improper, discriminately and against the spirit of law of natural justice.

The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the petitioner had been working as a sweeper in the office of the respondent since 1991. Initially the petitioner was engaged only in leave vacancies .

That the petitioner is a very poor man and is in the financial hardship and he is not capable to feed his family due to nonavailability ofservice . Hence the petitioner prays asunder :

That after sometime the petitioner was engaged fairly on regular basis with full payment, under the pretext that the petitioner would be absorbed in the regular service i.e. the petitioner was not paid for all the days for which he was called up on to work.

(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree order of absorption in the regular service with the respondent .

That the petitioner was not allowed to join duties on the plea that some other person has been appointed to perform the duties on regular basis for which he had been appointed.

(b) The respondent may be ordered to provide employment on the same basis as before the dispute arose , till the finalization of the suit .

( c) The respondent may please be ordered to pay the cost of this suit.

That Shri Subhash had joined duties on 9-10-1999. He was a fresher and temporary employee whereas he was permittedtowork .

The petitioner was again given opportunity to work with the office of the respondents on 6-12-1999 and he workedtillMarch, 2003 but he was again retrenched .

(d) To pass any order or orders deem fit in the interest of justice in the circumstances . The respondent may please be directed to pay all the outstanding amount due to the petitioner and restore his retrenchment and take the petitioner into the regular service.

The petitioner requested many times to the respondents to absorb him in regular service of the bank but the bank did not pay any heedto his request . He approached the office of the ALC ( C ) and reference was made by the government . Shri Subhash junior to the workman was permitted to join duties illegally.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present casc is not an industrial dispute as the same has neither been espoused by any union nor the same is covered by Section 2 ( oo) or Section 2 A of the ID Act , 1947 as it is also not a case of retrenchment or termination, discharge or dismissal etc. Therefore , the present alleged ID is not maintainable .

That the petitioner is senior to Shri Subhash who was engaged on 9-11-1999 and he is working in the office ofthe respondent . The petitioner should have been given the opportunity to work with the respondent as he was working with the office of the respondent since 1991 and Shri Subhash who was working since 11/1999 . The petitioner should have been given the opportunity to work based on seniority also . The act of the respondent is against the spirit ofConstitution of India and biased, indiscriminate and against the natural justice.

That it is submitted that there was no employer- employee relationship between the bank and what has been referred to by the appropriate government to this Hon'ble Tribunal cannot be termed as " Industrial Dispute" as per law laid down by the Apex Court . Further Shri Phool Singh cannot ask for regularization of his services with the bank dehorse the rules .

That the matter was referred to the government by the office of the RLC ( C) , New Delhi . The government has issued an order to refer the dispute under Section 10 of the ID Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , New Delhi .

That the term " retrenchment " has been defined in Section 2 ( oo ) of the ID Act, 1947 and sub - clause (bb ) of the said Section inter alia provides as under :

"Termination of the service of the workman as a result of non - renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein . " That the petitioner has already completed 792 days service from 1991 to August 2001 with the respondent's office . (Respondent's letter in this regard is attached as Annexure - IV) . Even such a long service , the petitioner was not given the opportunity to absorb in regular service which is illegal , unjust, unfair against the spirit of Constitution of India, improper, biased, discriminately and unconstitutional as well as against the natural justice .

That the petitioner was awarded the bonus also by the respondent for Rs . 1561.37 on 19-7-2002 ( letter in this

Itissubmitted that in the instant case , Shri Phool Singh was engaged for the limited period in stop - gap arrangement only and by virtue of Section 2 ( oo) (bb ) reproduced herein above the non - continuance of Shri Phool Singh 1933 [ भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

in the stop gap arrangement does not constitute retrenchment and accordingly, there can be no question of any violation of Section 25 F of the ID Act as alleged or otherwise.

It is denied that Shri Phool Singh was ever employed bythe bank as a part time sweeper in BO : ECE House, New Delhi. It is reiterated that Shri Phool Singh was engaged only to clean the branch premises in leave/stop -gap arrangement ofa permanent sweeper.

That, Shri Phool Singh is also not covered under Section 16.9 of the Desai Award which lays down that casual employees are excluded from the purview of the award.

تم

It is again reiterated that Shri Phool Singh was engaged onlyto clean the branch premises in leave/stop- gap arrangement of a part time sweeper for which the necessary payment was made to him as per bank's rules.

It issubmitted that all the allegations, submissions and averments made by Shri Phool Singh in the statement ofclaim dated 18-5-2004be deemed to have been specifically deniedunless they are specifically admitted in this reply.

That the same are admitted to the extent that Shri Phool Singh had been working in a stop -gap arrangement as a part time sweeper at BO : ECE House , New Delhi for the specified period i.e. as and when the permanent part time sweeper proceeded on leave and also for the specified period till the appointment of a regular sweeper in the branch. Rest of the contents are denied.

It is stated that no person with the name Subhash hasever beenappointed as a part time sweeper in BO: ECE House, New Delhi ofthebank.

It is submitted that Shri Phool Singh had been engaged in leave/stop-gap arrangement of a part time sweeper at BO : ÉCE House, New Delhi for a specific period i.e. as and when the regular sweeper had absented from the said office. Since the engagement of Shri Phool Singh was purely against leave/ stop - gap arrangement , discontinuation of the same cannot be termed as retrenchment as defined under the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the ID Act and accordingly, there cannot be any question of violation of Section 25 F or any other provisions ofthe ID Act, 1947.

That they are admitted to the extent that Shri Phool Singh had beenworking as a part time sweeper in BO: ECE House, New Delhi up to January, 2000 intermittently in leave/stop-gap arrangement as and when the permanent part time sweeper proceeded on leave.

That it is stated that no person with the name Subhash has ever been appointed as a permanent part time sweeper in BO : ECE House, New Delhi . It is denied that any provision of law or principle of naturaljustice is violated in discontinuing the engagement of Shri Phool Singh in stop- gap arrangement .

That they are admitted only to the extent that the so- called industrial dispute was raised by Shri Phool Singh before ALC(C) , which ended in failure of conciliation and the dispute stands referred for adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal/ Court by the appropriate government with the terms of reference mentioned therein. Rest of the contents are denied.

That the bank had entered into a conciliation settlement dated 7-5-1984 with All India PNB Employees Federation over the matter offixation of wages of parttime sweepers and related matters . In terms of the provisions of the said settlement, the vacancies of part time sweepers of various offices are identified keeping in view the sweeping area of the concerned office as well as hours of work per week to be put in by the part time sweeper. It is also agreed that the vacancies ofpart time sweepers eligible for 1/2, 3/4 or full wages arising at the station where the bank has more than one office on account of any reason shall be filled up on the basis of senority determined by converting the service put in at 1/3 , 1/2 , 3/4 of the scale wages into full time service. This procedure of filling up the vacancies is to be followed unless " thikana" system is in vogue at that particular area.

That Shri Phool Singh was only engaged intermittently in leave/stop-gap arrangement whenever the permanent part time sweeper proceeded on leave . It is denied that any provision of law or principle of natural justice is violated in discontinuing the engagement of Shri Phool Singh in stop- gap arrangement.

That the bank rules further provide that till such time a permanent part time sweeper is provided, the branch can makestop- gap arrangements . The persons engaged in such stop gat arrangements are entitled to a compensation equivalent to same proportion of scale wages but at the initial stage of scale of pay applicable to subordinate staff.

Bonus has been paid to Shiri Phool Singh as per Government/Bank Guidelines .

That as stated hereinabove in written statement of the management the claimant was engaged for a limited period in stop-gap arrangement only and was not appointed on permanent basis through a regular process of appointment and therefore according to the established law Shri Phool Singh is not entitled to claim regularization, That Shri Phool Singh used to be engaged at BO: ECE House, New Delhi in stop - gap arrangement for a specific period i.e. as and when the regular sweeper used to be on leave/absent. It is further submitted that Shri Phool Singh had been working in stop gap arrangement as a part time sweeper at BO : ECE House for the specified period till the posting ofa permanent part time sweeper.

1934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] as claimed by him in view of the following law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

has admitted that he completed service of 792 days from 1991 to August , 2001. It has nowhere been mentioned as to in which year the workman performed 240 days work .

It was further submitted by the management that the workman has been given appointment in leave vacancy by way of stop- gap arrangement . He was engaged whenever any staff proceeded on leave and payments have been made to him for that period against leave stop -gap arrangement . His discontinuation cannot be termed as retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act, 1947 and Section 25 F of the ID Act is not attracted.

(a) Mahendra L. Jain & Others Vs. Indore Development Agency and others reported in Jt, 2004 ( 10 ) SC page 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the applicant not having been appointed by following the procedure prescribed for the service issuing advertisements etc. , the appointments were void ab - initio of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgement has further held that the regularization cannot be claimed as a matter ofright and an illegal appointment cannot be legalized by taking recourse to regularization .

It was further submitted that the workman has admitted that he was initially engaged on leave vacancy and he has alleged that thereafter he was given regular appointment . He was not given regular appointment at any point of time. He was engaged against leave vacancy and whenever regular employee proceeded on leave he was given engagement for that particular period.

(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Kumar Viyarthi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1997 (76) FLR Page 237 and in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Bishambhar Dutt reported in 1997 ( 1 ) CLR 190 has held that termination and disengagement of casual/daily wagers cannot be treated as Industrial Dispute under the provisions of ID Act , 1947 .

From perusal of the record it transpires that the workman has admitted that he was engaged against leave vacancybut he was made regular thereafter. The workman has not filed any document to show that he worked for 240 days in any years of his employment . He has been paid bonus no doubt but even in the year of bonus he has not worked for 240 days . His admitted case is that he worked for 792 days in between 1991 to August, 2001 i.e. for 10 years . He has performed 792 days duties in 10 years . This indicates that he was engaged as stop - gap arrangement whenever regular staff proceeded on leave .

That in view of the submissions made hereinabove , it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to hold the action of the bank in discontinuation of stop - gap arrangement of Shri Phool Singh as just and proper and that Shri Phool Singh is not entitled to any relief as prayed for or otherwise .

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

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

It was further submitted that the workman has admitted that he was discontinued when regular appointment was made . This also proves that the workman was engaged against leave vacancy or till a regular employee was selected . The workman has not filed any document to show that Shri Subhash was junior to him . He has not filed any document to show that Shri Subhash was continued or he was given regular appointment . There are no documents in support of this plea of the workman.

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

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that initially he was engaged on leave vacancy. Shri Subhash junior to the petitioner was continued whereas the petitioner was retrenched .

It was further submitted that the petitioner has completed 792 days service from 1991 to August , 2001 with the respondent's office but he was not given regular appointment illegally, unfairly, unjustly and discriminately. The petitioner was awarded the bonus of Rs . 1561.37 on 19-7-2002 but regular appointment was denied to him.

The management has filed balance sheet of Shri Phool Singh. From perusal of the balance sheet it transpires that he has worked for 7, 8 , 10 days etc. in a month . The balance sheet proves that the workman was engaged when regular staff proceeded on leave i.e. he has been given periodical apoointments in different months and in different years . The balance sheet also shows that the workman was engaged for particular days and payment was made to him for those days only. It is true that he has performed 792 days work in between 1991 to 2001 but he has not performed 240 days work in any of the years of his employment .

It is settled law that the working of 240 days should be proved by cogent documentary evidence . Mere assertions in affidavit that the workman has worked for 240 days is not sufficient to hold that the workman has It was submitted from the side of the management that it was the duty of the workman to establish that he has worked for 240 days in the preceding ycar or in any of the years of his tenure i.e. 1991 to August , 2001. The workman [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii) ]

performed 240 days work. The workman has not filed any paper to substantiate his claim that he has worked for240 days in any of the years of his employment . It is true that he may not have worked for 240 days in the preceding year but he has to establish that he has worked for 240 days in any year of his employment.

Section 25 F of the ID Act, 1947 postulates that the workman should be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice in case he has worked for 240 days continuously in the preceding year of termination of his services or in any of the years of his employment. The workman has not performed 240 days work in any of the years of his employment . No one junior to him has been given regular appointment after his retrenchment. He has stated that he was removed and regular staff was selected . In such circumstances Section 25 F of the ID Act , 1947 is not attracted. The workman is not entitled to retrenchment compensation. He is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Punjab National Bank , E.C.E House , Connaught Circus , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Phool Singh, Ex . Sweeper (Temporary) is just, fair and legal. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly.

Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for necessary action at the end.

Date: 28-2-2007.

1935

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र10, 1929 .

management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 7-3-2007 .

[No. L- 12012/214/93 - IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI

Shri R.N. Rai , Presiding Officer

L.D. No. 22/1994

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri R.N. Sharma, R/o . WZ- 190 , Mohalla Chotiyal , PalamVillage, Delhi-110045 .

Versus

TheDy. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Link Hauz, 4, Bahadurshah ZafarMarg , NewDelhi .

AWARD

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 934.- 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, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/94) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/214/93- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/214/ 93-IR (B- II) Central Governmentdt, 17-2-1994 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India , New Delhi in dismssing Shri Ram Niwas Sharma , Assistant Cashier w.e.f. 14-1-1988 is justified ? If not, what relief is the workman entitled to ? "

राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th March, 2007 S.O. 934. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act; 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/94) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the 931 G1/07-20

The Claimant has filed statement of claim. In his statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman concerned was appointed as an Assistant Cashier in clerical cadre in Central Bank of India in the year 1978 and his service conditions were governed by the provisions of the Sastry Award modified by the Desai Award and as further modified by the various Bipartite Settlements entered into from time to time between the management of various banks including Central Bank of India and their workmen . That in the year 1981 when the workman was working at Press Area, New Delhi Branch of the Bank, he wasplacedunder suspension by the managment for having omitted certain alleged acts of omissions/commissions 1936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31.2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] while posted at Shahbad Mohammedpur Branch of the Bank . This suspension was made with effect from 1-9-1981. The Bank had instituted criminal proceedings against the workman in the same matter for which he was suspended which are still pending before a criminal court at Delhi .

That the workman then preferred an appeal dated 3-3-1988 before the Deputy General Manager/Appellate Authority at the Zonal Office , New Delhi ofthe Bank which was heard on 3rd May, 1988 but was rejected by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 14-9-1988 , a copy ofwhich is attached and marked as Annexure W/8 hereto . That the workman aggrieved by the action of the management raised an Industrial Dispute in the matter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) , New Delhi , but the conciliation proceedings initiated by the ALC ( C ) , New Delhi ended in failure of any settlement and the government referred the dispute thereafter to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication vide its order dated 17-2-1994 .

That about 5 years after the suspension of the workman the Regional Manager of the bank at its Regional Office-B , Delhi issued a memo dated 25-6-1986/ 1-8-1986 to the workman , making certain allegations against him in regard to having allegedly received an amount of Rs. 100 from a RDS Account Holder in January, 1981 and not depositing the same in the account of the said Account Holder. The workman submitted a reply dated 10-10-1986 to the aforesaid memo , denying the allegations made therein . Copies of the said memo and reply of the workman are attached as Annexure W/ 1 and W/2 hereto . That inspite of the reply submitted by the workman, the Regional Manager issued a charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 to the workman with a simultaneous order therein that an inquiry would be held against him as he had not submitted any explanation to the memo dated 25-6-1986 / 1-8-1986 . This charge sheet was followed by a corrigendum dated 19-2-1987 stating that the narration in the charge sheet . "Inspite of sufficient time given to him , no explanation is offeredby him till date " may be substitutedby the narration "Mr. Sharma's explanation dated 10-10-1986 has not been found satisfactory. " Copies of the charge sheet and corrigendum are attached as Annexure W/3 and W/4 respectively hereto .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the opposite party, Central Bank of India hereinafter referred to as " the Bank " most respectfully submit its written statement to the statement of claim dated 19th April , 1994. Before giving para - wise reply to the statement of claim the bank raised the following preliminary objections to the maintainability ofthe present statement of claim and the Industrial Dispute . It is stated that the workman concerned , Shri Ram Niwas Sharma was involved in various acts of gross misconduct while working as Assistant Cashier at B/ o . ShahbadMohd. Pur. New Delhi . He was allotted the duties of work of cash receipts and payments , HSS Ledger postings and completion ofpass books . While working in the said branch , Shri R.N. Sharma misappropriated funds to the tune of over Rs . 18.000 from arious parties maintaining their HSS account at the said branch by making fictitious entries without accounting for the cash deposited by them through the proper channel of books maintained at the branch .

Itis stated that when this fraud came into light of the bank immediately put Shri Ram Niwas Sharma , the workman concerned under suspension and thereafter issued a memo dated 3-8-1981 to Shri Sharma whereby his explanation was called upon to explain about his act of manipulation/ misappropriation of amounts in the HSS account ofvarious parties while working as Assistant Cashier at B/ o . Shahbad Mohd. Pur, New Delhi within stipulated period . Thereafter another memos dated 14-9-1981 and 13-2-1982 were issued to Shri Sharma . It is stated that despite various reminders dated 18-8-1981 , 1-9-1981 and 21-10-1981 , the workman concerned did not submit his explanation.

That one Mr. Satish Chopra who had been appointed as the Inquiry Officer to hold the inquiry against the workman simultaneously with the issuance of the charge sheet on 15-12-1986 commenced the inquiry on 17-1-1987, which was concluded on 14-5-1987 and after submission of the arguments by the bank's Presenting Officer and the Defence Representative of the workman , the Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority issued to the workman a show cause memo of order of proposed punishment dated 11-12-1987 which together with a copy of the findings of the Inquiry Officer dated 26-9-1987 were delivered to the workman on 16-12-1987 . A copy of the show cause memo/ order of proposed punishment is attached as Annexure W/ 5 hereto. That the workman appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 11-1-1988 and in the hearing held before him on that date , the workman filed his submissions in reply to the show cause memo/order of proposed punishment , where after the Disciplinary Authority passed a final order dated 16-1-1988 awarding and imposing upon the workman the punishment of dismissal from service as already proposed in the show cause memo dated 11-12- 1987. Copies of the submissions made by the workman before the Disciplinary Authority on 11-1-1988 and the final order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 16-1-1988 are attached as Annexure W/6 and W/ 7 hereto .

It is stated that Shri R.N. Sharma , the workman concerned while working at B / o . Shahbad Mohd. Pur, New Delhi involved in the acts of misappropriation and manipulation of amounts in various accounts of the parties the details of which have been mentioned hereinafter. It is stated that when no reply was received by us , a charge sheet dated 26-7-1983 was issued to Shri Ram Niwas Sharma, the workman concerned, wherein full details of manipulation and misappropriation of amount committed by Shri Ram Niwas Sharma , the workman concerned was given . He was 1937

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

also informed vide the said charge sheet the name of the Inquiry Officer and was also advised that he will be permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered trade union ofbank employees of which he is the member. This charge sheet was received by him as is apparent from Annexure M - I . The charges leveled against the workman concerned, Shri Ram Niwas Sharma are stated herein below:

"During the course of performance of his duties , Shri Ram Niwas Sharma has misappropriated funds to the tune ofover Rs . 18,000 from various parties maintaining their HSS A/ cs . At the branch by making various fictitious entries without accounting for the cash deposited by them through the proper channel of book maintained at the branch . The details of several such entries appearing in accounts are given below whereby it transpired that Shri Ram Niwas Sharma made a number of credit and debit entries under his initial though there were no respective cash receipts and payments shown in the cash receipt/ payment books , Cash Scroll Book and Detail Book:

A/ c . Loose

LeafNo.

Name of A/c Holder No.

Sl Date of No. receipt

Amount (Rs . ) Dr./Cr.

(5) (6) (3)

(4)

(1) (2)

LEDGER NO . 1

Sardare

93 195593 50/- (Cr .) 1. 2-5-1981

156 195695 60/- (Cr. ) 2. 14-5-1981 Principal CGHS School

Sardare

2000/-(Cr.) 3. 14-4-1981

177 195671

4. 1-4-1981 Ramu

(3)

(4) (5) (6) (1) (2)

LEDGER NO.3

RamNath

195817 400/- (Cr.) 12. 7-1-1981

854

624624 1450/- (Cr. ) 13. 17-1-1981

857

Nand Kishore

14. 7-1-1981

621470 250/- (Cr. )

813

Usha Kaushik

Chhaju Ram 873 634639 2100/- (Dr . ) 15. 22-1-1981

LEDGER NO.4

16. 11-5-1981

196107 50/- (Cr. ) Sunita 1420

17. 9-5-1981

1317 195986 230/- (Cr. ) Hanuman Mandir

1222 621385

Sri Chand

400/- ( Cr. ) 18. 14-1-1981

624865 120/- ( Cr. )

1078

19. 16-5-1981 Ashok Kumar

Phoolwati 1052 624895 250/- (Cr. ) 20. 14-1-1981

21. 6-5-1981

1364 196035 300/- (Cr. ) Sri Kishan

22. 1-1-1981

196031 40/- (Cr. )

1361

RajMal

Hari Dutt

195996 50/- (Cr. ) 23.31-3-1981

1392

196035

Smt . Kishan 1364

100/- ( Cr. ) 24. 26-3-1981

Parmanand 1282 195804 1200/- (Cr. ) 25. 28-2-1981

2-4-1981

195804

1282

1000/- (Cr . ) Parmanand

624817

1136

700/- (Cr.) Smt. Misri

26. 2-4-1981

624977

Sohan

400/- (Cr. ) 27. 15-5-1981

1149

1310 195979 1300/- (Cr . ) Roop Kaur

28.March, 1981

2000/- (Dr.)

298 195854

LEDGER NO.2

5. 5-1-1981

385 196010: 100/- (Dr. ) Chandgi Ram

R.S. Bharel 516 621369 500/- (Cr.) 6. 10-1-1981

624918

7. 4-2-1981

427

160/- (Cr. ) Bhajan Lal

624918

Bhajan Lal 427

100/- (Cr.) 2-3-1981

2-5-1981

427 624918 100/- (Cr. ) Bhajan Lal

624923

Bimla Devi 486

100/- (Cr. ) 8. 12-4-1981

624923

BimlaDevi 486

100/- (Cr.) 23-4-1981

PremVati

621115 150/- (Cr. ) 9. 1-5-1981

515

621214 50/- (Cr .) MS Lamba 633

10. 3-4-1981

624919

OP Bhutani 437

500/- (Cr. ) 11. 12-2-1981

It has also been observed that though debit entries as indicated above were made in the HSS accounts but no such cash withdrawal were made . Evidently Shri R.N. Sharma manipulated these debit entries in order to cover up the fictitious credit entries made by him in the various HSS accounts . Besides above , Shri R.N. Sharma has also manipulated the below noted accounts at B /o. Shahbad Mohd. Pur by making, fictitious credit entries as detailed below without depositing the said amount received by him from the respective depositors and has thus misappropriated the said amounts :

HSS A/ c No.

Date & Amount of creditentry Sr. Name ofthe No. A/c Holder

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

1000/-

541 May, 1980

1. Sher Singh

500/-

15-5-1980

580

2. Tek Chand

600/-

622 May, 1980

3. Rattan Singh Gaur

500/--

842 30-6-1980

4. Sita Ram 1938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (1) (2)

(3) (4)

(5) A/c 1282- Parmnand (Loose Leaf No. 195804) 5. Savitri Bhoral

998 20-6-1980

300/-

6. Millo Lal

1202 11-2-1980

100/-

7. Jai Kishan

300/-

1114 May, 1980

17-10-1980

123

900/-

8. Chandgi Ram

9. Munshi Ram

1009 6-10-1980 1200/-

On 2-4-1981 ledger shows credit of Rs . 1000 which was not entered in Scroll and in Cash Receipt Book. On 30-4-1981 an amount of Rs . 1050 was allowed to be withdrawn against the said credit. On the back ofwithdrawal slip the signature of Shri R.N. Sharma appears and which shows that he had taken the payment and later on 13-6-1981 a sum of Rs . 910 was deposited by Shri R.N. Sharma under his signature in the deposit slip.

500/-

10. Rajinder Singh Bhoral 516 20-11-1980

A/ c 1005-Sri Ram Vahti (Loose Leaf No. 524771) 941 26-11-1980 1000/-

11. Pooran Singh

12. Munshi Ram

1009 6-11-1980

800/-

13. Sita Ram

842 11-11-1980 300/-

14. O.P. Yadav

1050 5-12-1980

800/-

On going through this account it has been revealed that entries made in ledger and pass book do not tally. On 4-10-1980 a debit of Rs . 1200 was entered in the ledger and again on 3-4-1981 a sum of Rs . 1200 was credited in the party's account and balance was increased by that amount. Later on 7-4-1981 the balance was corrected by Shri R.N. Sharma

A/ c 1310 Roop Kaur (Loose Leaf No. 195979) It is also observed that , he has made manipulations as detailed in the HSS accounts at Shahbad Mohd . Pur Branch by making fictitious debits to cover up his manipulation in respect of misappropriation of credits , so as to manipulate tallying of ledger balances:

Sometime in March , 1981 a sum of Rs . 1300 was debited in the ledger account of the party and later in July, 1981 the balance was changed and corrected by Shri R.N. Sharma in the ledger as well as in the balance book.

Sr. No.

Name of the A/ c Holder

HSS A/ c No.

Date & Amount of creditentry

A/ c 177-Sardare (Loose Leaf No. 195671 )

1. Smt . Barfi

376 26-6-1980

100/-

2. Sat Pal Arora

678 26-6-1980

2000/-

1033 28-6-1980

3. Ram Kanwar

800/-

S/o Rella

4. Smt . Sahib Kaur 1195 May, 1980 400 /-

5. Mam Chand

311 3-10-1980

900/-

6. Sis Ram

1005 4-10-1980

1200/-

On 14-4-1981 a credit entry of Rs. 2000 was made in the ledger as well as in the pass book of the party under the signature of Shri R.N. Sharma though no such entry was available in the Scroll and in Cash Receipt Book . Again withdrawal of Rs . 1000 , Rs . 300 and Rs . 100 were allowed against the said deposit , although no such deposit as per bank's record was made but the said withdrawal of Rs . 1400 were allowed (whereby the A/ c stood over drawn by Rs . 951.59 ) .

500/-

520

7. Umed Singh Lamba

20-12-1980

17-11-1980

8. Ram Phool Sharma 962

2100/-

1043 No date

800/-

9. Smt . Badamo Devi

It has also been revealed that on 15-6-1981 the following amounts in cash were deposited in the parties accounts without any signature of the depositor in the vouchers.

Account No.

Amount

1317

Rs. 230

Besides what is stated above it is further observed that Shri Ram Niwas Sharma has tempered with the records ofthe bank and made several manipulations in the following accounts :

1364

Rs . 300

1392

Rs. 50

A/c 801-Bhagwati ( Loose Leaf No. 624570 )

1445

Rs. 200

On 10-4-1981 credit entry of Rs . 500 was made by Shri R.N. Sharma in Ledger as well as in pass book but ne such entry is reflected in Cash Scroll and in Cash Receipt Book. This entry was subsequently cancelled in the ledger .

"The aforesaid acts of Shri R.N. Sharma are prejudicial to the interest of the Bank constituting gross misconduct within the meaning of Para 19.5 ( i) and 19.5 (j ) of the BPS . "

A/c 956-Krishna Devi ( Loose Leaf No. 624721 )

It is stated that the bank has also filed an FIR in regard to various acts committed by the workman concerned. Shri R.N. Sharma and the police after On 15-10-1980 credit entry for Rs . 1500 as made in the ledger by Shri R.N. Sharma and subsequently on 19-12-1980 the ledger entry was cancelled by him.

1939 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31, 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

: It is stated that the workman concerned was advised vide the said charge sheet that he will be allowed to be represented by a representative of a registered trade union of the bank employees of which he is the member. The bank, submits that as a matter of fact the workman concerned was representedby the President of the Central Bank Staff Union, Shri Tara Chandra Gupta during the course ofthe entire inquiry proceedings.

investigation filed a charge sheet in the court. In view of this the bank had kept the disciplinary action against the workman concerned in abeyance . It is stated that after the charge sheet was filed by the police in the Criminal Trial Court, further proceedings were held and the latest position inthis case as informed by the police to the bank is that the case was fixed for the evidence of the prosecution on 31st March, 1994. Further information regarding proceedings in the court have not been received from the police so far.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has denied most of the paras of the written statement and has stated that no show cause notice was given to him . No opportunity of submitting application was given to him. His guilt was prejudged. The fraud alleged related to January, 1981 whereas the charge sheet was given tohim after five years .

Both the parties have adduced evidence.

Itis stated that further investigation revealed that theworkman concerned, Shri R.N. Sharma was involved in further acts of gross misconduct for which he was served with a memo dated 25-06-1986 . A reminder was issued to this memo dated 19-9-1986 . It is mentioned that even after a lapse of about three months the workman concerned did not submit any explanation to the said memo. Hence the bank proceeded in the matter on the basis of available facts and issued him a charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 in which following charges were leveled against him:

This case has been remanded by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by order dated 16-11-2006 for hearing fresh argument. The previous award dated 20-12-2004 has been setaside ..

Heard argumants from both the sides again.

"On 31-1-1981 , Shri R.N. Sharma while working at B/o . Shahbad Mohd. Pur had received the following amounts for credit of under noted accounts mentioned against each, from the respective depositor :

1. Rs. 100 for credit ofRDS A/ c 103 Shri Deep Chand Saini.

2. Rs . 100 for credit ofRDS A/ c 185 Shri Raj Kumar Saini.

In case ofRDS A/ c 103 relating to Shri Deep Chand Şaini , Shri Sharma got one pay -in -slip for Rs . 100 scrolled and accounted for amount but in the case ofRDS A/c 185 pertaining to Shri Raj Kumar Saini, Shri Sharma neither got. the pay - in- slip for Rs . 100 scrolled nor accounted for.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that initially charge sheet dated 26-7-1983 was served on him but the matter has not been inquired into. Fresh charge sheetwas issued to him on 15-12-1986 . His representation to show cause notice has not been considered. He sent explanation to the memo dated 25-6-1986, 19-9-1986 on 10-10-1986..but without considering the explanation chargesheet dated 15-12-1986 was served on him. The management has issued corrigendum dated 19-2-1987 and it has been stated that explanation of Shri R.N. Sharma has been considered and it has not been found sufficient. This corrigendum dates back to 19-2-1987 whereas charge sheet was served on Mr. sharma on 15-12-1986 , so his representation has not been considered.

Ittranspires from perusal of the record that inquiry was not held on charge sheet dated 26-7-1983 as an FIR was lodged in regard to various acts committed by Shri R. N. Sharma and Police filed a charge sheet in the Court. Inview of criminal trial pending before the Court of law, no inquiry was held on the charge sheet dated 26-7-1983.

It further transpires that Shri R.N. Sharma was acquitted ofthe charges in the criminal trial by judgement dated 6-1-1995 . The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused workman as the witnesses examined did not support the case of the prosecution.

However, Shri Sharma had made the credit entry of Rs . 100 each in the respective pass book of the above mentioned accounts duly initiated by him with with a view to dupe the cited accounts holders and took monetary advantage thereof. The pay - in - slip ofRs. 100 pertaining to RDS A/ c 103 was duly posted in bank ledgers . But subsequently, Shri Sharma had intentionally changed the account of 103 to 185 by tempering with bank's records so as to show as if the amount of Rs . 100 was originally deposited in the account of RDS 185. His mischievous motive was self vitiated as Shri Deep Chand Saini's name remained unaltered , bearing scroll No. 3 and recorded as "RDS 103 account Deep Chand" in Cash Receipt Book and thus he has pocked a sum of Rs . 100 paid in by Shri Raj Kumar Saini's RDS 185 for depositing in his RDS A/c .

The charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 was issued when fraud and embezzlement was traced by the bank regarding the previous acts of the workman. The inquiry has been held on charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 .

"The aforesaid acts of omission/commission on the part of Shri Ram Niwas Sharma constitute gross misconduct within the meaning ofClause 19.5 (j ) of the BPS. " 1940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 /CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

the representation of the workman, so it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority passed a cryptic order. The Inquiry Officer has also analyzed the evidence in details.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he hasbeen served with charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 by letter dated 24-12-1986 and on 19-2-1987 a corrigendum has been issued which mentions the extension dated 10-10-1986 of the workman . It was found not satisfactory by the management .

It appears that a charge sheet was issuedto the workman on 26-7-1983 in which embezzlements of 3-8-1981, 14-9-1981 and 13-2-1982 have been mentioned. In this charge sheet several irregularities have been pointed out. It appears that no inquiry has been held on this charge sheet . Shri N.M. Ahuja, Chief Officer , Parliament Street was appointed Inquiry Officer.

From perusal of the inquiry report it appears that evidence has not been taken by the management regarding this charge sheet .

The management has examined during the inquiry Shri Raj Kumar Saini in whose account Rs . 100 was not deposited. He made a complaint dated 18-2-1986. He has confirmed his letter in his examination in chief. This witness has been cross -examined. He has specifically stated that Rs . 100 paid by him has not been accounted by the CSE. MW3 , the handwriting expert has specifically stated that the disputed entry, 1 and question 2 are in the handwriting ofthe person whose standard writing are S - series i.e. Shri R.N. Sharma. The handwriting expert has been cross- examined by the DR of the workman and he has proved that the disputed and admitted handwriting are of the same person . The workman has not produced the report of the handwriting expert it is proved that there is tampering of the accounts of Shri Deep Chand Saini .

The management in the course of inquiry has examined Shri K.K. Kohli as MW1 . The management has further examined MW2 , Shri Raj Kumar Saini , Village: Shahbad, Md. Pur, New Delhi . The management examined Shri Ashok Kashyap , MW3 , Handwriting Expert .

From the perusal of the inquiry report it becomes quite obvious that all the 3 witnesses have been cross- examined by the workman in detail by his DR. the Inquiry Officer after analyzing the evidence of these witness has givenhis findings .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the charge sheet dated 1983 contains several accounts but no evidence has been laid on the embezzlement and the tempering of the accounts of the person mentioned in the charge sheet . It becomes quite obvious that evidence on charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 was available , so the management has taken evidence of the complainant Shri Raj Kumar Saini and Mr. Kohli , the Account Officer and Mr. Kashyap , the handwriting expert .

In the charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 it has been specifically mentioned that on 31-1-1981 the workman did not mention the money deposited in the credit of account of103 of Shri Deep Chand Saini and account 185 of Shri Raj Kumar Saini.

It has been further alleged that the workman did not mention the money to dupe account holders and took monetary advantage thereof. It has been further alleged that the workman has intentionally changed the account No. 103 to 185 by tampering with bank's record , so as to show that the amount of Rs . 100 was originally deposited in the account of RDS 185.

It was further submitted from the side of the workman that the explanation to charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 has not been considered by the management. No prejudice has beencaused in case representation has not been considered at the time of issuing charge sheet and the wokman has not shown as to what prejudice has been caused to him. It is true that evidence has not been laid regarding the charge sheet dated 12-1-1983 but there is sufficient evidence . So far as chargesheet dated 15-12-1986 is concerned. Tampering of the documents is proved by the examination in chief and cross - examination of the witnesses . The complainant has also deposed in the inquiry and it has not been suggested to him that he was prejudiced or he was in collusion the bank.

It is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to consider the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence. It is settled law that in departmental inquiry charge can be held proved on the single testimony of the department. In the instant case 3 witnesses have been examined .

It further transpires that in the chargesheet dated 26-7-1983 there is allegation of embezzlement of fund to the tune of over Rs . 18,000 from the varius parties maintaining there HSS account in the branch by making various fictitious entries without accounting for the cash deposited by them through proper channel of the books maintained at the branch . From the perusal ofthe evidence in the inquiry itbecomes quite obvious that evidence has not been laid on the charge sheet dated 26-7-1983 .

The law regarding evidence in inquiry has been summarized by the Bench of 3 judges in 1997 Lab IC 845. It has been held as under :

So far as charge sheet dated 15-12-1986 is concerned, the management has examined 3 witnesses . They have been cross -examined by the DR of the workman in length. The InquiryOfficer has given his reason for holding the charge proved . The Disciplinary Authority has also considered

"In a domestic inqiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a provident mind are permissible . There is no allegry 1941

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

tohearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibiity. The departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence Act."

"The sufficient of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence ofany evidence in support of a finding is certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record."

chargesheet dated 1983. The management was competent toinquire into the charges of 1983 also but since criminal trial was initiated by the prosecution, the managementdid not hold inquiry on the chargesheet of 1983. The management has not precluded from holding inquiry on the embezzlement which was detected later on. The inquiry has been held regarding charge sheet of 1986 and the Inquiry Officer has found the charges proved. Disciplinary proceedings are not a criminal trial . The scope of inquiryis entirely different from that of the criminal trial in which the chargesheet is required to be proved beyond doubt . In domestic inquiries preponderance ofprobability and some material on record are sufficient to reach the conclusion against the delinquent employee.

Ihave perused the case law cited by the workman. It is not proper to mention the law cited by the workman as they are not relevant.

In the instant case as mentioned above the management has examined 3 witnesses, MW1 is the Accounts Officer, MW1 is the complainant and MW3 is the Handwriting Expert . All the 3 witnesses have been adequately cross -examined by the DRof the workman. They have consistently deposed that there is tampering of records and embezzlement of atleast Rs . 100. It has been held in Jagmohan Reddy's case as under:

The punishment of dismissal is not disproportionate or shocking to the conscience of the court though there is embezzlement ofa meager amount of Rs . 100. Tampering of the records has also been proved. The post of a bank employee is a post of repose and faith. If there is embezzlement of only a meager amount in that case also the punishment of dismissal can be awarded.

It is settled law that a Court or Tribunal on its own views cannot set aside the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Ihave perused the records carefully and thoroughly. The findings ofthe Inquiry Officer, Discipinary Authority and theAppellateAuthority are not perverse. The findings are based on material placed on records . It cannot be said that this is a case of no evidence . The findings of the Inquiry Officer are not liable tobe set aside even on the grounds of delay.

An Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in characterizing the finding recorded in the domestic inquiry as perverse unless it can be shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence , or is entirely opposed to the whole body of the evidence adduced before it . In a domestic inquiry once a conclusion is deduced from the evidence , it is not permissible to assail that conclusion even though it is possible for some other authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the same evidence . There is also no rules of evidence which lays down that the evidence of a solitary witness cannot be relied upon ormerely because there is only a solitary witness in support of the charge, no conclusion can be based upon it even though the evidence of that witness is acceptable as true. "

Delay isnotmaterial in the case of moral turpitude. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between B.C. Chaturvedi and Union of India & Ors . with Union of India& Anr . and -B.C . Chaturvedi as under:

Ithasbeen held in this case that in domestic inquiry evidence of a solitary witness is sufficient to hold the charges proved.

under: It has been held in 2001 in 2001 (89) FLR 427 as

"It is well settled that a conclusion or finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interfered with by the court only when there is no material for the said conclusion; or that on the materials , the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. "

"Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings- cannot by itself be regarded as violative of Article 14 or21 of the Constitution . The Court or Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an appellate authority to re -appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent finding on the evidence-Tribunal held not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority."

It has been further held as under :

"Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be convassed before Court/ Tribunal."

"The High Court/Tribunal , while exercising the power ofjudicial review cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other It becomes obvious from this law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court can interfere only when there is no material on record. In the instant case there is sufficient material . In a departmental inquiry the standard ofcriminal trial is not required and technical rules ofevidence are not attracted. In the instant case there is embezzlement of at least Rs . 100 and tampering of the records . The workman cannot get the benefit of acquittal in the trial on 1942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10 , 1929

penalty, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal . " Inthe facts and circumstances of the case punishment ofdismissal is not disproportionate . Delay has not caused any prejudice to the workman .

The embezzlement was detected in 1983 and 1986 . The chargesheet has been served promptly. In such case the periods of limitation runs not from the date when fraud was committed but from the date when fraud or embezzlement was detected . Embezzlement in the instant case was detected in 1986 pertaining to previous period of 1981 or 1982 and chargesheet was promptly served on the delinquent . Proper inquiry has been held and the workman has been given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, adduce his evidence . He has been given 2nd show cause notice regarding proposal of punishment of dismissal , so delay is not material in the case of misappropriation nd embezzlement . Principles of natural justice have been observed in the inquiry. It is not liable to be set aside . The workman applicant is not entitled to get anyrelief.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Central Bank of India , New Delhi in dismissing Shri Ram Niwas Sharma, Assistant Cashier w.e.f. 14-1-1998 isjustified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

Award is given accordingly.

Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for necessary action at the end.

Date: 27-2-2007

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 8 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 935.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन 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, अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 94/ 2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 07-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/216/2001- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th March, 2007

S.O. 935. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 94/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Industrial Dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 7-3-2007 .

[No. L- 12012/216/2001 - IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , L.L.B. , Presiding Officer I. D. No. 94/2006

(I.D. 8/2002 of Labour Court , Ernakulam) Workman

: V. Abraham Kavalakkal House , Manjummel , P.Ο. , Kochi -683 501 .

Adv. H.B. Shenoy :

Management

Assistant Manager , Union Bank of India , Regional Office , M.G. Road, Kochi -682035 .

Adv. Shri A.S. P. Kurup AWARD

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

"Whether the alleged termination of services of Shri V. Abraham by the management ofUBI is correct, legal or justified ? Whether the applicant is eligible for all benefits and relief in the light of decision of Supreme Court granting status of workman to the Deposit Collectors ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

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

According to the claimant he was employed as a regular Mini Deposit Collection Agent at Manjummel Branch of Union Bank of India since 3-4-1975 . He had been discharging his duties diligently and honestly. However, in December 1983 , he was suspended from service by the management without notice and without assigning any reason. The claimant had been approaching the branch of bank requesting to allow him to resume duty. The Branch Manager wanted the claimant to wait till the verdict in I.D. 14/80 pending before National Tribunal , Hyderabad . On 22-12-1988 an award was passed by the National Tribunal , Hyderabad . The claimant thereafter submitted an application on 16-8-1989 requesting to absorb him as sub- staff of the bank . Then the claimant was told by the Branch 1943 .

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3(ii ) ]

Manager that the award was being challenged before High Court of Andhra Pradesh and he will have to wait till the decision ofthe High Court . Finally the matter was taken up before Hon'ble Supreme Court and by judgement dated 13-1-2001 the award of National Tribunal , Hyderabad was upheld finding that the deposit collection agents are workınan' within the definition ofS -2(s) of I.D. Act . Even thereafter the management did not take back the claimant. The action of the management is illegal and unjust. The workmen is without employment and is in great difficulties. The workman is entitled to be reinstated with back wages , continuity of service and other benefits.

Branch of Union Bank of India. He was terminated from service w.e.f. 5-12-1983 . The industrial dispute was raised in 2002. Thus , it is after 18 years that the dispute was raised. But, according to the workman , ever since he was suspended from service he was approaching the bank every now and then requesting to allow him to resume duty. But he was asked to wait until the verdict in I.D. 14/80 pending in National Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad. When the award was passed and was published in 1989 the claimant submitted an application to the bank requesting to absorb him as a sub-staff. He was called by the Branch Manager fora personal discussion. When he approached the Branch Manager he was asked to wait tilll the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court where the award was challenged. Finally the matter was taken up before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court came out in 2001 . Even then the bank did not act in terms ofthe final verdict oftheHon'ble Supreme Court . Hence the industrial dispute was raised in 2002.

3. According to the management the reference is bad and unsustainable . The claimant is not a workman of the bank. The management has not terminated the service of the claimant. Hence there is no industrial dispute in existence .As per an agreement the claimant was authorized to work as a mini deposit collection agent at Manjummel Branch of the bank . He was giyen commission according to the collection . He was not entitled to the benefits given to regular employees . He was not entitled to terminal benefits . The claimant was neither suspended nor terminated from service . The agreement between him and the bank alone was suspended. There were complaints against the claimant that by receiving bribe and in collusion with the then Branch Manager loans were granted to various persons from the Bank. The matter was investigated by the Vigilance Department of the bank. Hence the management had to suspend the agreement with the claimant . There is long delay of 18years and lapse on the part of the claimant in raising an industrial dispute . The bank had never given any promise that the employment of the claimant will be considered after the verdict in industrial dispute pending before National Tribunal , Hyderabad. The claimant was not entitled to get any notice of termination or compensation in lieu of notice. There was no need for conducting a domestic enquiry as he was not a regular employee of the bank. Since the claimant was engaged in illegal and unlawful 'activities the contract was suspended by the bank . The claimant is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for consideration :

(1) Is the dispute stale ?

(2) Whether the claimant was terminated from service ? If so , is the termination legal ?

(3) To what relief is the workman entitled ?

6. Regarding the submission, that after he was terminated from service in December, 1983 he has been approaching the bank with a request, to allow him to continue in service as deposit collector, there is only the ipse dixit ofthe worker. However, in 1989 he had submitted an application to the bank requesting the bank to absorb him as sub - staff. This was done after the verdict ofNational Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad. Ext. M5 (a) is the original application submitted to the bank. This is admitted by the bank . While the claimant was suspended from service or terminated from service the industrial dispute regarding the status of deposit collection agents was pending before National Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad. The Union Bank was a party to the I.D. Besides, as a member of Indian Banks Association ( IBA) also UBI was a party. Thus the issuewas very much alive when the claimant was terminated from service . Hence even if the claimant had not made a representation in writing to the bank before 1989 it cannot be said that the claimant had abandoned his claim and slept over the matter for a period of 6 years after his termination . The very reason why Ext . M5 (a) application was submitted by the claimant after 6 years is itself indicative ofthe fact that he was waiting for the outcome in I.D. 14/80 of Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad . Admittedly, after the verdict of National Tribunal , Hyderabad the matter was taken up before Andhra Pradesh High Court and the apex court . The final decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was on 13-1-2001 . Immediately thereafter the present dispute was raised by the claimant. Therefore there is no delay in raising the industrial dispute. The claimant did not do so early because of the pendency of I.D. 14/80 of National Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WWI and documentary evidence of Exts . W.1 to W4 on the side of workman and MW1 and Exts . M1 to M9 on the side of management .

7. Point No. (2):

5. Point No. (1) :

According to the claimant he was suspended from service .According to the management there was neither Itisan admitted fact that the claimant was appointed as a mini deposit collection agent on 3-4-1975 in Manjummel

931G1 /07-21 1944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] suspension from service nor termination of service but only suspension of the agreement between the parties . These rival contentions are nothing but acrobatics of terminology. Whether the agreement was suspended or the person was suspended the effect is that the worker was kept out of service for a long time and it amounts to termination of service . It is relevant to note Para 2 of the claim statement of the workman that in December, 1983 the management bank had suspended the workman's service without giving him any notice . But in the relief portion he retracted and said that the action of the management in terminating the service of the workman is illegal and unjust and has to be declared so , that the workman is entitled to all the benefits and reliefs in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the claimant is entitled to be reinstated in service with back wages , continuity of service and other attending benefits . Thus the claimant has ultimately admitted that , what was done by the management in December , 1983 , was termination of service. In Para 6 at page 4 of the written statement the management contends that the agreement was suspended and not the worker. It also denics to have terminated the service of the worker. Ext . M5 ( a) contains as annexure which is a termination order issued by the Regional Manager of the bank to the claimant on 1-12-1983 . The wording of the order is that the services of the claimant were terminated as per clause 11 of the agreement w.e.f. 5-12-1983 . Ext. M5 ( a) application of the claimant shows that he had enclosed a copy of termination order. Thus the very order issued by the bank to the claimant is a termination order and not an order of suspension of the agreement . Therefore all the contentions of both parties regarding the disruption in service are nothing but jugglery of words . In short , the bank had terminated the services of the worker on 5-12-1983 .

The issue was regarding the status of mini deposit collection agents in different banks in India . While pending that issue the worker in this case was terminated from service. Since the bank was a party to I.D. 14/80 and a common issue was pending before a National forum, the award is binding and applicable to all mini deposit collection agents in banks as well as the member banks of IBA . Hence the award in I.D. 14/80 is applicable to the claimant in this case also. Since deposit collection agents are held to be 'workmen' within the definition of S -2 (s ) of I.D. Act they are entitled to the benefits of S - 25F, provided they have put in continuous service of 240 days during a period of 12 months prior to their termination . In this case the claimant had worked more than 240 days during 12 calendar months prior to his termination . This cannot be disputed by the bank . But the question is , was the bank bound to give a termination notice by reason of the award in I.D. 14/80 which was passed in 1988 ? As that time nobody was aware of the outcome in I.D. 14/80 much less that the collection agents would be held to be ' workmen ' within the definition of S -2 ( s) of the Act . Therefore the bank had no occasion to know that a termination notice was necessary. The position became clear only after 1988. By that time the claimant was out of service . Therefore the termination, even if effected without a notice , cannot be said to be illegal or in violation of any provisions of I.D. Act. Ext. M4 is copy of termination letter . The service of Ext. M4 on the worker is disputed. However in Ext . M5 application of the worker to the bank , Ext . M4 termination letter is referred . But no notice as per S - 25F of the Act was given to the worker. But in 1983 the bank was not bound to issue a notice as per S - 25F. The decision came only later. In the light of the decision at the most the worker can claim compensation in lieu of notice . However the termination cannot be said to be illegal for want of notice . Besides , the bank has a case that the termination was effected as per clause 11 of the agreement between the parties . Ext . M8 is the model agreement of mini deposit collection agents . Clause 11 of the agreement says that :

this agreement may be terminated by the principal at any time without notice to the agent ' .

Invoking this clause in the agreement , the letter of termination was issued to the claimant .

9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the worker that the worker was terminated from service on allegations of financial irregularities . However no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given to him to offer his explanation or to defend . Therefore the termination order is stigmatic and affects him throughout .

8. The next question is whether the termination is legal . According to the claimant , the National Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad and subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held in I.D. 14/80 that the mini deposit collection agents are ' workmen' within the definition of S -2( s ) of I.D. Act . Therefore the claimant too is entitled to the benefits of the award . He has been working since 1975 to December, 1983 and had put in more than 240 days of continuous service prior to the termination . Hence he is entitled to get a notice of termination or compensation in licu of notice as per S - 25F of I.D. Act . That was not done by the bank. Hence the termination is illegal . However, according to the bank the award was passed by the National Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad in 1988 and was published by the Government in 1989. But the claimant was terminated from service in 1983. Therefore the award ofNational Industrial Tribunal can have no bearing on a decision taken by Management in 1983. But this argument does not appear to be sound . The industrial dispute before National Industrial Tribunal . Hyderabad was raised in 1980.

10. Ext . M4 is termination letter. It does not mention anything about any misconduct or financial irregularities onthe part of worker . On the other hand , clause 11 ofExt . M8 agreement was invoked to terminate his services . Being not a regular employee of the bank no service records of 1945 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

Exhibits for the Management :

M1 Photostat copy of Guidelines for Mini Deposit Scheme issued by Central Development Department , UBI dated 22-5-1974 .

M2 Photostat copy of appointment letter dated 18-3-1975 issued to the workman.

M3 Photostat copy of Rules of Business in r/o . Mini Deposit Scheme.

M4 Photostat copy of termination letter issuedto the workman dated 1-12-1983.

M5 Photostat copy of application dated 16-8-1989 submittted by the workman to theManjummel Branch Manager , UBI .

the worker was maintained by the bank. Ext . M9 is a complaint sent by a customer of the bank alleging gain of illegal gratification by the Branch Manager and the worker had acted as an intermediary. A vigilance investigation was conducted by the vigilance department of the bank against the Branch Manager. Ext . M7 is the vigilance report. It was not an investgation against the worker. The worker himself has admitted while he was examined before this court (WW1 ) that an officer from vigilance department had asked him about the Branch Manager and the worker had disclosed whatever he knew about the Branch Manager . Thus the bank has not recorded anywhere that on account of the acts of financial irregularities the worker was terminated from service . Hence there is no stigma in the matter of termination of service . The bank is empowered to terminate the services at any time without enquiry as per clause 11 ofExt . M8 . It is a termination simpliciter.

M5(a) Application dated 16-8-1989 submittedby the workman to the Manjummel Branch Manager, UBI.

Therefore I find that the termination of service is legal andvalid.

11. Point No. (3) :

M6 Photostat copy of forwarding letter ofthe application submitted by the workman to theRegionalOfficer dated 30-8-1989.

In the light of the reasons' stated above I find that the claimant is not entitled for reinstatement or any other relief.

M7 - Photostat copy of report of the Chief Vigilance Officer , Bombay dated 21-8-1982.

M8 Photostat copy of model agreement executed by deposit collectors .

M9 - Complaint sent by Shri A. G. Divakaran Nair dated 13-7-1982 .

12. In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the services of Shri V. Abraham is legal and justified. The claimant is not entitled to any relief. No cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च, 2007 Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 27th day of February, 2007 .

P. L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman :

का.आ. 936. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का.14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रीमांऊट ट्रेनिंग स्कूल एण्डडिपो के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

WW1 Shri V. Abraham

Witness for the Management :

[सं. एल-14012/4/2005- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] एन. एस. बोरा , डेस्क अधिकारी MWI Shri R. Prabhakar .

New Delhi , the 12th March, 2007 Exhibits for the Workman :

W1 Identity card issued to the workman by the management dated 3-4-1975 .

W2 Letter dated 22-8-1989 issued by the Branch Manager , UBI to workman.

W3 Copy of petition dated 5-3-2001 filed by the workman before ALC(C) .

S.O. 936. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 114/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. II , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation. to the management of Remount Training School and Depot and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12-03-2007.

[No. L - 14012/4/2005 - IR(DU) ] N. S. BORA , Desk Officer W4 Failure of conciliation report of the ALC(C) dated 28-11-2001 .

1946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

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

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

Shri R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

That the concerned person while he was working in the Saw Machine , which is established by the employer Remount Training School and Depot , Saharanpur in its Agricultural Farm on 22-01-2003 at about 11.30 a.m. met with an accident during the course of employment and in that incident lost his left hand due to injuries sustained.

ID No. 114/2005

PRESENT :

Shri Ahbabhasan - 1st Party.

Shri D. S. Mchandru-2nd Party.

IN THE MATTER OF :

That the concerned person was admitted in the Hospital at Saharanpur by the employer for treatment but his left hand has not been recovered. Consequently the concerned person/ claimant filed a case before the Commissioner under Workman Compensation Act , Saharanpur for compensation and the said case was decided inhis favour.

Shri Murslin .

S/ o Shri Ekhlakı , Ghoghrey Ki Dr. Sadak , Doodhli , Saharanpur ( U.P. ).

Versus

That the employer has given the light duty job to the concerned person however on 18-09-2003 the employer terminated the services of the concerned person/claimant illegally , wrongly and unjustifiably and without any notice and compensation as required under the provisions of ID Act, 1947 .

The Colonel Commandant , Remount Training School and Depot .

Saharanpur (UP) .

AWARD

That the concerned person / claimant served a registered notice upon the employer requesting them to take him on duty and challenging the ilegal termination however the employer had - not respondent .

That the concerned person /claimant has worked with the employer continuously for 240 days in a calendar ycar .

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 14012/4/ 2005 - IR ( DU) Central Government dated 26-09-2005 has refered the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hercunder: ---

That the concerned person/claimant is still out of employment and has no means to carn lilelihood . That the post in which the concerned person/ claimant was working is regular in nature and the persons who are junior to the concerned person/ claimant are still working with the employer .

"Whether the person Shri Murslin , S/ o . Shri Ikhlakh was in regular employment in Remount Training School & Depot . Saharanpur . If so , his termination/ disengagement from services w.c.f. 18-09-2003 without any notice and compensation is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned person is entitled ?"

The workman applicant has filed statement of claim .

That the action of the employer in terminating the services of the concerned person/ claimant w.e.f. 18-09-2003 is illegal , improper, unjustified and amounts to unfair labour practice.

In the statement of claim it has been stated that government has referred the following dispute between the parties for its adjudication . That the concerned person Shri Mursalin was a regular employce of Remount Training School and Depot , Saharanpur who was working with effect from July, 2002 on the post of Mistri-Aara Machine ( Operator Saw Machine) on a monthly wage of Rs . 3000 along with Rs . 50 asdiet allowance per day.

It is , therefore , prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the person Shri Murslin was in regular employment in Remount Training School and Depot , Saharanpur and his termination/disengagement with effect from 18-09-2003 is illegal , improper and unjustified without notice and compensation and grant the relief of his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service and other allied benefits and also grant the cost of the present proceedings .

That the Remount Training School and Depot , Saharanpur is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2(j ) of the ID Act . 1947 as the same is carrying on its commercial activities through Agricultural Farm and also running Animal Husbandry occupation .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the Remount Training School and Depot , Saharanpur is not an industry within the meaning of ID Act , 1947. Therefore, the present case is not maintainable .

That the Remount Training School and Depot, Saharanpur is the employer of the concerned person/ claimant within the meaning of Section 2 ( g ) of the ID Act , 1947.

That the alleged workman is not a workman as defined in the ID Act . 1947, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief 1947

भारत का राजमुत्र मार्च 31 , 2007 /चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II-खंड (ii) ]

from this Hon'ble Court and the present case is liable tobe dismissed.

already submitted that the alleged workman was never a regular employee of the alleged management but was: engaged as a daily rated worker on daily wages between August, 2001 to September, 2003 as on required basis only, hence, the question of terminating his services or issue of notice does not arise. Furthermore , the alleged workman on his own disengaged himself and did not render his services after 17-09-2003 .

That since the alleged management is not an industry under the provisions of ID Act, 1947 , this Hon'ble Court has nojurisdiction to adjudicate the present case. However, without prejudice tothe nights ofthe alleged management the parawise reply; en merits is being given herein under

Itisincorrect that there was illegal termination of the alleged workman as, alleged. As already submitted the alleged workman was not a regular employee , hence, the question of his termination whether illegal or legal does not arise . Furthermore , the said individual did not render His services himself after 17-09-2003.to

As per the relevant records the alleged workman was only required to serve for 85 days in the year 2001 ; 217 days in the year 2002 and 154 days in the year 2003, whereafter, he himself did not render his services for the reasons best known to him. "

It is denied that the alleged workman was a regular employee of the alleged management and was workingw.e.f. July, 2000 on the post ofMistri Ara Machine on the monthly wage of Rs . 3000 along with Fwith Rs . 50 as diet allowance per day. It is submitted theIthat the said individual neither was not is a regular einpolyse ofthe alleged management. It is further submitted that there is no post of Mistri Ara Machine (Operater Saw Machine) existing in the establishment of the alleged management. As per the records , the said individual was engaged as a daily rated workman on payment of daily wages between August, 2001 to September, 2003 for a period ranging from 9-28 days in amonth as on required basis only..

It'isdenied that the post in which the claimant was working is a regülar one in nature and the persons who are junior to the claimant are still working with the employer as alleged. As already submitted, there is no post of Mistri Ara Machine in the establishment of the alleged management, therefore , the contention of the alleged workman are also false and misleading.

It is denied that the alleged managment is an industry within the maining of ID Act and is carrying on commercial activities as alleged. It is submitted that the alleged management is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) of the ID Abt as it is not carrying out any cómmercial activity to satisfy wants of human needs: The agricultural and animal husbandry activities are totally oriented for meeting the defence requirement of the armed forces and not for any commercial gains . ない。

It is denied that the alleged management is the employer ofthe above named claimant within the meaning ofSection 2(g) of the ID' Act, 1947 .

Itis denied that the action of the employer in terminating the service/disengagement of the concerned person/ claimant w.e.f. 18-09-2003 is illegal , improper, unjustified and amount to unfair labour practice . In fact there is no question of termination of the service of the allegedworkman by the alleged management as the alleged workman had only worked as a daily wager between 2001 to2003 onrequired basis and after 17-09-2003 , he himself did not render his services for the reasons best known to him, for which, he cannot blame the alleged management .

It is denied that the aboye named individual while working on the Saw Machine on 22-01-2003 met with an accident during the course of his employment as alleged. It is further submitted that as per the relevant office records , shri Murslin was not engaged on the date of the alleged accident i.e. 22-01-2003 at about 11.30 am. and as such, a question of his meeting an accident during the course of his engagement does not arise .

In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above , it is most respectfully prayed that the alleged workman is not entitled to any relief as prayed by him in the abovecase and the petition filed by him may kindly be dismissed with costs against the alleged workman:

Pass any other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

As the alleged, workman was neither an employee of the alleged management nor was engaged on the date of the accident , as such, there is no question of the management to admit the alleged workman in hospital . Rest para is amatter ofrecord . However, it is submitted that an appeal against the order WCA 31/2004 has been filed before the Hon'ble High Court , Allahabad in Appeal No. FAFO 1426/2005 which is pending adjudication .

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that several dates have been given to the workman, for filing rejoinder and affidavit but he has not done so . At last on 05-01-2007 opportunity for filing rejoinder and affidavit was closed.

Heard the managment ............

It is denied that the alleged management has given light duty job to the alleged workman. On 18-09-2003, his services wereterminated illegally, wrongly, unjustifiably and without any notice and compensation as alleged. As 1948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10, 1929

From perusal of the pleadings of the parties the follwoing issues arise for determination:-

1. Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide this case ?

2. Whether the workman is entitled to rein- statement ?

3. To what amount of back wages the workman is entitled ?

4. To what other relief the workman is entitled ?

ISSUE NO . 1

This case of the workman is that the contention of the management that the appropriate forum is only Central Adminsitrative Tribunal ( CAT ) and not Labour Court is not in accordance with law. As per the Amendment Act , 1986 the amendment is inserted in Section 28 of the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985 and these amendments have been substituted w.e.f. 01-10-1985 the provision of the said amended Section of 28 is reproduced as under :-

"28. Exclusion of jurisdiction of courts except the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and from the date from which any jurisdiction, power and authority becomes exercisable under this Act by a Tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment to any service or post or service matters concerning members of any service or persons appointed to any service or post , no court except-

(a) the Supreme Court , or

(b) any Industrial Tribunal , Labour Court or other authority constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 or any other corresponding law for the time being in force shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to such recruitment or matters concerning such recruitment or such service matters . " In view of the above the stand of the management that the workmen can only approach the Central Administrative Tribunal is not tenable. As per the provision of CAT the workmen may approach either to CAT or Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court .

Section 14 runs as under :-

14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal--

(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise , on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction , powers and authority

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ] exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court ) in relation to -

(a) recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to any All India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence services, being, in either case , a post filled by a civilian;

(b) all service matters concerning-

(i) a member of any All India Service ; or (ii) a person [not being a member of an All India Service or a person referred to in clause ( c) ] appointed to any civil service ofthe Union or any civil post under the Union; or

( iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All- India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence .

Jurisdiction is always conferred by a statute . Section 14 of the CAT 1985 confers jurisdiction on Central Administrative Tribunal . The CAT has jurisdiction in regard to service matters of All India Service or any Civil Services ofthe Union or a Civil Post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or any defence service. So the jurisdiction of the CAT is confined to the service matters ofAll India Services or any Civil Services of the Union or any Civil Post under the Union or services rendered in defence . The CAT has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the cases of industrial workers . The workmen are undoutedly industrial worker .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that thejudgment of the Constitution Bench ( 1978 ) 3 SCR 207 still holds the field so far as definition of 2J of ID is concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that judgment has laid down triple tests and in the light of these tests it is to be ascertained whether the respondent/ management is an Industry or not.

Ithas been held in Bangalore Water Supply that in an Industry there should be systematic activity and it should be organized by cooperation between the employer and the employees and it should be for production and/ or distribution of goods and service calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes . It has been held that absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant . The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer and employee relations . If an organization is not carrying on trade and business , it is not beyond the purview of Industrial activities .

1949

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

not the welfare activities of economic adventures undertaken by government or statutorybodies .

(1978). 3 SCR-Bangalore Water Supply case is a Constitution Benchjudgment . It is still holding the field in the matter of adjudication of this point.

Evenindepartments discharging sovereign functions if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable then they can be considered to comewithin Section 2(j ).

...

The respondent's unit is not engaged in a sovereign function. It has been held in the above case that even arsenal or artillery department is an industry. Industry is decided on the nature ofwork it is performing.

Ithas been held in this case that Section 2(j ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which defines industry contains words of wide import as wide as the legislature could have possibly made them. The problem of what limitations could and should be reasonably read in interpreting the wide words used in Section 2(j ) is far too policy oriented to be satisfactorily settled by judicial decisions. The Parliament must step in and legislate in a manner which will leave no doubt as to its intention . That alone can afford a satisfactory solution to the question which has agitated and perplexed the judiciary at all levels.

1 Fromperusal ofthe records it becomes quite evident that the respondent/management is engaged in systematic human activities . The respondents are not discharging duties for gainsbut gainful objective is irrelevant in deciding whether an undertakaing is an industry or not . In case activities ofthe respondents are considered in the crucible ofthe triple tests , respondent is obviously and definitely an industry.

In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down triple test to ascertain whether a particular unit or undertaking is an industry or not. It has been held in this case that where ( i) systematic activity, ( ii ) organized by cooperationbetween employer and employee ( the direct and substantial element is chimerical ) (iii ) for the production and/or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not spiritual or religious , but inclusive of material things or services geared to celestial bliss e.g. making on a large scale prasad or food).

It was submitted from the side of the workman that theRemount Training School and Depot, Saharanpur is an Industry within the meaning ofSection 2(j ) ofthe ID.Act, 1947 as the same is 'carrying on its commercial activities through Agricultural Farm and also running Animal Husbandry occupation.

(b) Absence ofprofit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant be the venture in the public, joint, private or other sector.

Itwas further submitted that the Remount Training School and Depot, Saharanpur is the employer of the concerned person/claimant within the meaning of Section 2(g) ofthe ID Act, 1947.

(c) The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer -employee relations .

(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does not cease to be one because of philanthropy animating the undertaking ...

Although Section 2 (j ) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs , their meaning cannot be magnified to over each itself.

It was submitted from the side of the management/ respondent that the alleged management is not an industry within the meaning of ID Act. It is not carrying commercial activities as alleged. It is submitted that the alleged management is not an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) of the ID Act as it is not carrying out any commercial activity to satisfy wants of human needs . The agricultural and animal husbandry activities are totally oriented for meeting the defence requirement of the armed forces and not for any commercial gains.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down further the dominant nature test. It has been held as follows :-

"Where a complex ofactivities some ofwhich qualify for exemption, others not involves employees on the total undertaking some of whom are not workmen as in the University ofDelhi case or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corporation of Nagpur will be the true test . The whole undertaking will be industry although those who are not workmen by definition may not benefit by the status .

From the foregoing it becomes quite obvious that the management is engaged in commercial activities . It is running Paramount Training School and manufacturing tools, furniture for supply to the defence. The management is not discharging sovereign functions directly. It is true that the management is working for meeting the needs of thedefencebut in view of Bangalore Water Supply's, case the management is an Industry because it is engaged in systematicwork of manufacture offurniture etc. for meeting the needs of the defence . It does not discharge any sovereign functions. It has been held in Bangalore Water Supply that been Arsenal department of Military is an Industry. Thus the management is an Industry. It is run under the authority of the Central Government, so the Notwithstanding the previous clauses , sovereign functions, strictly understood (alone) , qualify for exemption 1950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] CentralGovernment is the appropriate government in view of Steel Authority of India's case . This Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the case of the industrial workers . This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO . 2

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman does not deserve reinstatement in view ofUma Devi's case .

ID Act, 1947 has been enacted to safeguard the interest of the workmen belonging to poor segment of society. It appears that legislature wanted that such workmen should not be harassed unnecessarily so Section 25 F, U, T and Clause 10 of Vth Schedule havebeen enacted. The objects and reasons of ID Act , 1947 show that the respondent management should not be permitted to indulge in any unfair labour practice . The workman should not be engaged for years and then he should be removed all of a sudden . There is provision of retrenchment compensation for his removal . Retrenchment compensation is for compensating him otherwise so that he can survive long interregnum of unemployment . In the instant case no retrenchment compensation has been paid.

It was submitted from the side of the workman that he was retrenched in non - compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act . No retrenchment compensation has been paid to him . He was removed as he has become handicapped. In such circumstances the management should have paid him retrenchment compensation . His case iscovered under ESIC also . He is entitled to reinstatement .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has put down a complete ban on regularization and reinstatement . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that employment can only be made on the basis of procedure established in that behalf envisaged by the Constitution. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark and the Constitution enshrines affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals . So public employment should be in terms of constitutional scheme.

My attention was drawn by the Ld. Counsel of the workman to 2000 LLR 523 State of UP and Rajender Singh . The Hon'ble Apex Court ordered for reinstatement with full back wages as the services of the daily wager cleaner who worked for 4 years was dispensed with without following the procedure for retrenchment . In the instant case also no retrenchment compensation has been paid. This case law squarely covers the instant case .

Itwas further submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment has afforded a right according to which the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages .

It has been held in 1978 Lab IC 1668 that in case service of a workman is terminated illegally the normal rule is to reinstate him with full back wages .

My attention was further drawn to AIR 2002 SC 1313 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wager even if serving for a short period should be reinstated .

The Hon'ble Apex Court has not declared the provision of ID Act unconstitutional . The Government has got no licence to make appointment of daily wagers and to continue them for life time. Fixed term tenure appointments and temporary appointments cannot be the rule of public employment. At the time ofmaking temporary appointments Articles 14, 16, 21 , 23 , 226 & 309 are infringed . There is no constitutional mandate that the government is at liberty to go on giving fixed term appointments for the entire tenure of service of an employee .

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in the instant case Section 25 F, G ofthe ID Act are attracted. In Section 25 of the ID Act it has been provided that if a workman has performed 240 days work and if the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be given pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is no cessation of service in case provisions of Section 25 F are not complied . In the instant case no compensation has been paid to the workman who has continuously worked for 3 years .

In the Constitution Bench Judgment in Uma Devi's case these matters were not at issue . In case a workman has worked for years and the work is of continuous and regular nature he should be paid retrenchment compensation . In case retrenchment compensation is not paid Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted . There is no cessation of his services . He is deemed continued in sérvice in the eye of law. In case there is breach of Section 25 F the service is continued and reinstatement follows as a natural consequence .

No such Article of the Constitution has been pointed out under which the Government or Public Sector units cancontinue incessantly to give temporary and fixed term appointments again and again . Since fixed term appointments, and temporary appointments are not governed by any constitutional scheme . such discrimination will amount to vicious discretion . The Government of Public Sector unit will go on resortingto the method pick and choose policy and give temporary and ad hoc appointments to their favorites and thus the principles of equality enshrined in the constitution will be given a go byc . Such is not the intent of the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this judgment the provision of the ID Act governing the services of the workman have not been declared unconstitutional . Reinstatement is the remedy provided in the ID Act for breach of several provisions 1951 [भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

enumerated therein or for breach of service rules provided in various labour welfare legislations .

The case of the workman is that he was working on Saw Machine which is established by the employer Remount Training School and Depot, Saharanpur in its agricultural farm on 22-01-2003 . At about 11.30 a.m. he met withan accident during the course of employment and in that incident he lost his left hand due to injury sustained. He was admitted in the hospital at Saharanpur by the employer for treatment but he has become handicappedby his left hand. He filed his case before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Saharanpur for compensation and the said case was decided in his favour .

Section 11 A of the ID Act stipulates that in case the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was notjustified , it may, by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require . According to this benign provision this Tribunal has the authority to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and reinstate the workman on the terms and conditions as itthinks fit .

Thecase ofthe management is that the management has gone in appeal against the order of the Commissioner . The management has admitted that the workman was in employment from August , 2001 to September, 2003. The accident occurred on 22-01-2003 , so the workman suffered injuries during his period of employment . He was admitted inhospital on the same day even by the employer.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (4) Scale has not annulled section 11 A of the ID Act and the legislature has authorized this Tribunal to set aside dismissal or discharge on its consideration and direct reinstatement . The judgment citedby the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case .

A three Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in 1993 - II- LLJ that termination of services affects the livelihood of not only of the employee but also ofthe dependents . So in case of illegal termination ofservice the workman should be reinstated .

Reinstatement should not be misconceived as regularization.By the order of reinstatement the status quo ante of the workman is restored .He is given back wages in order to compensate him for his illegal dis - engagement . This is a special remedy provided in ID Act and it has not been annulled and set aside by any judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The provisions of the ID Act are still constitutional and they are to be given effect too .

The case of the management is that he left the job voluntarily. He has become handicapped due to the accident during his employment , so there can be no question of leaving the job voluntarily. The management should have taken sympathetic attidue regarding his re- employment . The job is ofperennial and continuous nature. There is still Saw Machine operating under the control of the management . Some other persons would have been taken at his place . So the management is not justified in terminating the services of the workman without payment ofretrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice . The attitude of the management is cruel and callous . The workman is entitled to be reinstated in view of the admitted case of the management though he has not filed rejoinder and affidavit in support of his claim statement . Sundays and Holidays are to be counted while counting working days in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In case Sundays and Holidays are accounted the workman has performed duties for more than 240days.

In such cases the workman is reinstated with back wages and the respondents have every right, after payment ofback wages and reinstatement, to retrench him validly following the principles of first come last go so that section 25, G & H ofthe ID Act are not violated.

Inthe instant case the workman was engaged by the management in July, 2001 and his services were terminated on 18-09-2003 , so he has performed 240 days continuous work and he was entitled to get reinstatement compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice . The management has not done so. There is no compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act . There is no cessation of service of the workman for non -compliance of Section 25 F of the ID Act . The workman deserves reinstatement . This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO . 3

The managementment has filed written submission. It becomes quite obvious from perusal of the written statement that the management has specifically admitted that as per the relevant records the alleged workman was only required to serve for 85 days in the year 2001. 217 days in the year 2002 and 154 days in the year 2003. As per theadmission of the management the workman has worked continuously for 3 years . In the year 2002 he has at least performed more than 240 days work. It is categorical admission of the management that the workman worked in betwen August, 2001 to September , 2003 as on required basis only.

Itwas submitted by the management that payment of full back wages is not the natural consequence of the order ofdischarge or dismissal being set aside .

The case of the management is that the workman disengaged himself. He abandoned the services of the management:

931 G1/07-22 1952

It has been held in ( 2003 ) 6.SCC 141 that is incumbent upon the labour court to decide the quantum of back wages .

Ithas been further held in (2001) 2 SCC that payment of back wages having discretionary clement involved it is to be dealt with the facts and circumstances of the case. No definite formula can be evolved .

It has been further held in this case that payament of backwages in its entirety is the statutory sanction. In (2003) 4 SCC 27 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in view ofdelay in raising the dispute and initiating the proceedings back wages need not be allowed . In the instant case there is no delay at least on the part of the workman in raising the dispute.

In 2004 VIII AD SC 444 the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of reinstatement with 25% back wages .

In 1978 lab IC 1968-three Judges Bench of the Hon'bleApex Court held that payment of full back wages is the normal rule . In case services have been illegally terminated either by dismissal or discharge or retrenchment, in such circumstance the workman is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness . In the instant case the workman was always ready to work but he was not permitted on account of invalid act of the employer.

In AIR 2002 SC 1313 the Hon'ble Apex Court reduced the back wages to 25%.

In 2005 IV AD SC 39 - three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that reinstatement with full back wages is justified. In this case the workman has performed more than 240 days work and he has been retrenched without payment of compensation and pay in licu ofnotice.

It was submitted from the side of the management that reinstatement is not the only remedy. In such cases the workman may be given compensation. Section 11 A of the ID Act , 1947 provides that in case dismissal or discharge is found illegal reinstatement should be ordered. It has been held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court that reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule . The statute provides for reinstatement . In certain exceptional cases where the undertaking has been closed downor it has become sick there may be order for payment ofcompensation .

The workman has rendered services for 3 years . He has performed 240 days work at least in one year . He became handicapped while he was on duty. In view of tenure of his service he is entitled to get 50% back wages only. This issue is decided accordingly.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/CHAITRA 10 , 1929

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] The reference is replied thus :-

Shri Murslin . S / o Shri Ikhlakh was not in regular employment in Remount Training School and Depot , Saharanpur. However the termination/disengagement from services w.e.f. 18-09-2003 is neither legal nor justified . The management is directed to reinstate the workman w.e.f. 18-09-2003 within two months from the date of publication ofthe award with 50 % back wages .

Award is given accordingly.

Let copies of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour . Government of India for necessary action at their end.

Date: 28-02-2007

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 937.- 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 निदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 335/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-12025/ 1/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi . the 12th March , 2007

S.O. 937. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 335/ 2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 12-3-2007 .

[No. L - 12025 / 1/2007 - IR ( B - II ) | RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer I.D. 335/2006

Sindhu K.N..

Kunnumpurath House . Eroor West.

Thrippunithura

ISSUE NO . 4

From the issues decided above it becomes quite apparent that the workman deserves reinstatement with 50% back wages . This issue is decided accordingly.

Workman Dy. General Manager. Staff Section (W) . Canara Bank , Circle Office.

Thiruvananthapuram.

Management [भाग II-खंड3 (ii) ]

1953

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

AWARD

This is a complaint filed under Section 33 -A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

2. The complainant was part -time sweeper in Canara Bank. She has been working since 1992, initially as part- time sweeper, thereafter from 1-7-2000 in permanent vacancy as part - time sweeper. The complainant had demanded regularization in service . However the management retrenched the complainant from service w.e.f. 4-11-2006. Hence this complaint for direction to reinstate the complainant in service with back wages and for declaring the retrenchment as illegal . The matter camp up in Adalat for settlement . The parties came to an agreement and finally settled the matter agreeing to allow the complainant to continue to work in leave vacancy. The settlement is signed by both parties .

3. In the result, an award is passed in terms of the settlement. The settlement will form part of the award. No cost . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 23rd day of February, 2007.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Appendix:Nil.

IN THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

I.D. No. 335/2006

In the Lok Adalat held on 23-2-2007 parties came to a settlement to the effect that the bank has no objection for the worker to continue to work on leave vacancy on daily wage basis as is being done now and bank will not make any change of that position until I.D. 35/2006 is finally decided. I.D. is accordingly disposed of.

Dated this the 23rd day of Februrary, 2007.

Petitioner/Workman

Respondent/Management Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Mediator

नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2007

का.आ. 938.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटेड 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 , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/320/95- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th March, 2007

S.O. 938. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/1997) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2007 .

[No. L- 12012/320/95 - IR(B -II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Shri Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer Reference No. 2 of 1997

PARTIES :

Regional Manager ,

RegionalOffice,

United Bank of India , CityCentre, Durgapur, Burdwan.

Vs.

Secretary,

UnitedBank of India Employees Union,

CityCentre,

Durgapur, Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : Sri P.M. Chatterjee , Advocate

For the Union ( Workman) : Sri P.K. Das , Advocate .

State: West Bengal Industry:Bank

Dated the 6-2-2007 .

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt. of India 1954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 407/ CHAITRA 10 , 1929

through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. 1. -12012/ 320/95 - IR (B - 2 ) dated 30-12-1996 has been pleased 10 refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of United Bank of India, 16. Old Court House Street . Calcutta in transferring Sri Ratan Lal Gupta. Typist -cum -Clerk, Burdwan Regional Office isjustified ? If not to what relief the employee is entitled to ?"

After having received the order No. L- 12012320/95- IR(B -2) dated 30-12-96 of the said reference from the Govt . of India Ministry of Labour . New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute a reference case No. 2 of 1997 was registered on 13-1-97 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed notice to the respective parties through the registered post directing themto appear in the court on the date fixed and file their written statement along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registering post were issued to the parties concerned Sri P.K. Das , Advocate and Sri P.M. Chatterjee. Advocate appeared in the court to represent the Union and the management respectively along with the letter of authority and filed their written statements in suport of their respective claims .

From perusaf of the record it transpires that the case was fixed for hearing on merit of the case previously parties had prayed for time to get ready which were allowed several times. It is further clear from the record that on the date fixed for hearing-i.c . 6-4-06 the union left taking step on its behalf and remained absent continuously up to 6-2-07. It appears that the Union has got no interest to pursue the disputes or reference . The case is pending since long time for the disposal . It is not advisable to keep the record pending for unlimited time in anticipation of the appearance of the Union to take suitable step on its behalf. Now it is not proper to keep the records pending any more as no useful purpose is to be served, As such it is hereby

ORDERED

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

MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 939.- औद्यागिकः विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] न्यायार अर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 265/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/160/94- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th March , 2007

S.O. 939.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 265/ 20061of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2007.

[No. L - 12012/160/94- IR(B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Sir PL . Norbert. B.A .. LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 28th day of February, 2007/9th Phalguna , 1928) I.D. 265/2006

18/94 of Industrial Tribunal . Kollam) SA. Usha. Koothattuvila Thottarikathu Veedu, Nalanchira P.Ο. Thiruvananthapuram -695015. Adv. Shri H.B. Shenoy

Workman The Regional Manager. Indian Bank . RegionalOffice, aruvananthapuram -695001 . Ads Shri S. Easwaran .

Management AWARD

Das is a reference made by Central Government under Section 1 ) ( d ) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudicaton . The reference is:

"Winether the action of the management of Indian Book. Thiruvananthapuram in terminating the services of Smt . A. Usha . Part-time Sweeper w.e.f. 3.4 and not considering her for empanelment for permanent absorption in terms of the approach paper chulatedby the Ministry of Finance in 1990 is jusufied ? If not , what relief is the said workman emoled to [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ).]

1955

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

2. The reference was made to Industrial Tribunal, Kollam . That court had passed an award on 18-1-1997 finding that the worker had not worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months prior to her termination and that she was not entitled to get any relief. This award was challenged before Hon'ble High Court ofKerala in O.P. 11563/97. By judgement dated 5-10-2006 the award of Industrial Tribunal, Kollam in I.D. 18/94 was set aside and the reference was remanded for reconsideration in the light of the decision in workmen ofAmerican Express V. Management of American Express 1985 II -L.L.J . 539. Since the remand was to this court the records were obtained from Industrial Tribunal , Kollam . No further evidence was adduced after the remand..

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

According to the claimant , Smt . Usha , she was employed on temporary basis for cleaning purposes of Nalanchira Branch of Indian Bank as a part -time employee in May, 1983. She continued to work till 2-3-1994 . The claimant had applied for appointment as a permanent employee in the branch in the vacancy that had arisen due to retirement of a permanent employee on 30-6-1993 . The worker had put in more than 270 days' continuous work and she was eligible for absorption. Instead of considering her request for absorption, the management terminated service of the claimant on 2-3-1994 . Hence the claimant approached ALC ( C) , Thiruvananthapuram to intervene in the dispute . The worker is the sole bread - winner of the family consisting of her ailing husband and school -going children . The management illegally terminated the service ofthe worker . As per the provisions of I.D. Act the worker is entitled to get a termination notice or compensation in licu of notice. Since the management has violated the provision u/ s - 25F of I.D. Act the claimant is entitled to be reinstated with back wages , continuity of service and other consequential benefits .

4. According to the management the claimant was engaged as casual worker for sweeping work . Her engagement was not regular. She did not work continuously from May, 1983 to 29-3-1994 . She was engaged only on Icave vacancies of a permanent part- time sweeper. She was paid on daily -wage basis . The permanent vacancy that arose on 30-6-1993 due to the retirement of a permanent part- time sweeper had to be filled through Employment Exchange . The claimant was engaged for 122 days as casual labourer during the period from 1983 to 1992, for 25 days from january 1993 to June 1993 and 197 days from July 1993 to March , 1994. It is denied that the claimant had worked 270 days continuously. No letter of appointment or letter of termination was issued to the worker. She is not a workman' coming within the definition of S - 2 (s ) of I.D. Act . The provisions of Bi -partite Settlements are applicable only to regular employees of the bank and not to casual labourers. There is no violation of any of the provisions of I.D. Act . The calimant is not entitled to any relief.

5..The only point that requires consideration is:

"Whether the claimant had put in 240 days ' continuous service during 12 calendar months prior to her termination ?"

The evidence consists ofthe oral testimony of WW1 anddocmentary evidence ofExts . W1 to 10 on the side of worker and MW1 and Exts . M2 series on the side of management.

6. The Point :

To be a ' workman ' within the definition of S -2 (s ) of I.D. Act and to claim the benefits of S- 25 -F read with S - 25- BofI.D. Act, certain conditions are to be satisfied. S-2 (s) defines 'workman' as follows:

S -2 ( s) . " workman " mean any person (including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person

S -25F . " No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until :

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the resons for retenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;"

S-25B. Definition of continuous service .

"For the purpose of this Chapter :

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a perod if he is , for that period, in uninterrupted service , including service which maybe interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation ofwork which is not due to any fault on the part ofthe workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuuous service within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of 1956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] one year or six months , he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer:

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made , has actually worked under the employer for not less than:

275 days during a period of 12 month preceding his termination excluding short break in service . According to the employer he had worked only for 220 days . While the worker had included Sundays and other Holidays as days on which he had actually worked under the employer, the management had excluded Sunday and holidays while calculating the total number of days the employee had worked . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 5 of the judgement has observed thus :

(1)

(ii) Two hundred and forty days , in any other case; "

"The expression which we are required to construe is actually worked under the employer ' . This expression according to us cannot mean those days onlywhen the workman worked with a 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 or implied cantract of service or by compulsion of statute , standing orders , etc. The learned counsel for the management would urge that only those days which are mentioned in the Explanation to S -25 B ( 2) should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the number of days on which the workmen had actually worked though he had not so worked and no other days . We do not think that we are entitled to so constrain the construction of the expression ' actually worked under the employer ' . The explanation is only clarificatory as all explanations are , and cannot be used to limit the expanse of the main provision. If the expression actually worked under the employer ' is capable of comprchending the days during which the workman was in employment and was paid wages -- and we sec no impediment to so construe the expression- there is no reason why the expression should be limited by the explanation . To give it any other meaning then what we have done would bring the object of S - 25F very close to frustration . It is not necessary to give examples of how 25 F may be frustrated as they are too obvious to be stated . " 7. Coming to the case on hand, Smt . A. Usha was engaged as a casual labourer for sweeping work from May, 1983 to 30-6-1993 , i.e. until the retirement of permanent sweeper , in leave vacancy. Thereafter she continued to work in the permanent vacancy till 2-3-1994 when another permanent sweeper was appointed through Employment Exchange. According to the worker she had worked continuously for more than 240 days prior to her termination. But according to the management she had worked continuously only for 197 days prior to her termination. Ext. W6 is a statement submitted to ALC( C ) by the worker.There it is mentioned that from July 1993 toMarch 1994 she had worked continuously for 245 days. The number of days worked every month is mentioned in Ext. W6 . It shows that the worker had counted Sundays nd Holidays also . Ext W5 is a statement of Regional manager of the Bank submitted to ALC ( C ) . There it is stated that from 1-7-1993 to 2-3-1994 the worker had cotinuously worked for 197 days excluding Sundays and Holidays . Ext . W8 is another statement submitted to ALC (C ) by the Zonal Manager of the Bank. There the number ofdays the worker had worked is given in detail . As per that statement , from July 1993 to march, 1994 she had worked 197 days. for the period of 12 calendar month prior to her termination , i.e. from April 1993 to March 1994 she had worked 218 days . Admittedly the said 218 days does not include Sundays and Holidays . It is the specific contention of the management that the worker was a casual labourer paid on daily-wage basis whenever she had worked . There was no work on Sundays and Holidays and no payment was also made. But , according to the learned counsel for the worker, a person who works six days in a week, is entitled to a rest daywith payment. If so . according to him , Sunday is to be treated as a working for the purpose of S - 25 - F read with 25- B ofI.D.Act.

8. The learned counsel draws support for his contention in the decision of Workmen of American Express V. management of American Express 1985 II - L.L.J . 539. In that case, aTypist Clerk was working in a temporary capacity with short breaks from 4-11-1974 to 31-10-1975 . The worker had contended in that case that he had actually worked

In the next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the worker and reported in H.D. Singh Vs. R.B.I & Ors . 1986 I - L.L.J. 127 appears to have no application on facts . The relevant discussion is contained in paragraph 11 of thejudgement . The worker in that case was a Tikka mazdoor . Hewas claiming continuous service of 240 days (including Sundays and holidays ) prior to its termination . The management was asked to produce records at the instance of the worker, but the management did not do so. In the circumstances that the bank had not produced the records summoned . that there was no contra - evidence and in the light of the allegation of the worker that the bank had tampered with the records , the Hon'ble Supreme Court drew an inference that the case of the worker that he had worked for more than 240 days , was true . However there is no discussion on the issue as to how and when Sundays and 1957

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

had, not actually worked and hence those holidays and Sundays cannot be counted for the purpose of Section 25 -F ofthe Act .

holidays are to be counted for the purpose of Section 25 -F of I.D. Act . Hence the decision is not helpful in the instant case.

What emerges from the aforesaid decision is that if there is statutory contractual compulsion to pay wages on Sundays and holidays , those days are to be counted for the purpose of Section 25B (2) read with Section 25F of the Act.

10. The worker in the instant case was a casual labourer admittedly. No bank regulations or circulars or standing orders governing the case of casual labourers are brought to the notice of this court . But, according to the learned counsel for the worker, by virtue of statute the management is bound to provide a paid holiday in a week even to a casual labourer . The learned counsel refers Explanation to Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 by virtue of which holidays are declared. It reads:

"The expression "Public Holiday" includes Sundays and any other day declared by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette , to be a public holiday. "

9. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1997 S.C. 3657 relied on by the management it was held that temporary employees working on daily wage basis and disengaged by the employer , cannot be construed as retrenchment under I.D. Act . The concept of retrenchment cannot be streched to such an extent as to cover temporary employees .However, in this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not considered the ambit and scope of Section 25 -F and 25 -B of I.D. Act . Besides it was a case of temporary employees . Hence the decision cannot help the management . However in Himalaya Drug Commpany Vs. Taj Ahamad 2005 III - L.L.J. 504 (Kant) relied on by the learned counsel for the management , it is observed that the words in Section 25 - B (2) ( ii ) " actually worked under employer" would include those days which the workman has been paid wages either under contract or service or under any statute or notification, etc. It is further held that : ' in other words days for which no wages have been paid to the workman cannot be counted for the purpose of determining whether workman had worked continuously for a period of 240 days ' . Referring to ' Workmen of American Express case it is observed in Para - 10 as follows :

According to learned cousel , certain clauses of the 1st Bipartite Settlement also mention that Sunday is a rest day.

Clause 14.2 of 1st Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 refer to actual hours of work of full -time workmen. The hours of work are fixed for days from Monday to Saturday only and not Sunday.

Clause 14.12 refers to part - time workmen . However that clause says that provisions regarding working hours and overtime contained in Chapter IV of 1st Bipartite Settlement ( including clause 14.2) are not applicable to part- time workmen, bank workmen engaged in domestic service, gardeners and sweepers .

Clause 14.9 says that any day declared as holiday under the Negotiable Instruments Act for half-yearly and yearly closing of accounts shall be deemed to be normal working days for all workmen employed in all banks.

"Theaforesaidjudgement ofthe Apex Court makes it clear that the words " actually worked under employer " would include all those days which the workman has been paid wages , either under contract ofservice or under any statute or notification etc. In other words , days for which no wages have been paid to the workman cannot be counted for the purpose of determining whether workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days : There cannot be any dispute in this matter, that the workman has worked for only 197 days and was paid wages only onthose days . The same is very much clear from the register Exhibit M- 6 . Further , from the material on record it is clear that the workman was not paid the wages for Sundays and other gazetted holidays either under contract of employment or under any statute or notification. No notification or standing order is brought to the notice of this Court to show that the casual or dailywage workers are entitled to be paid even on Sundays or general holidays during which they have not worked. "

These clauses ofthe Bipartite Settlement are referred bythe learned counsel to show that Sunday is not a working dayand is treated as a holiday. However, these clauses in theBipartite Settlement will not come to the help of the worker to show that Sundays and Holidays are to be counted for the purpose of Section 2,5 -F of I.D. Act because the said clauses of the Bipartite Settlement are applicable only to regular employees of the bank, whether part -time or full -time, and not to casual workers or temporary workers.

11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the worker that continuous service mentioned in Section 25 -B ofI.D. Act includes also service which is interrupted on account ofcessation of work, which is not due to any fault of the workman. According to the learned counsel Sunday is not aworking day for the bank . It is so decided by the bank In the next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the management , Sunder Dass Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board 2005 II -L.L.J . 128 (P & H) , the relevant decision is contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgement, wherein Workmen of American Express case is discussed . It is held that in the reported case there was no obligation either under express or implied contract ofservice or by compulsion of statute , standing orders etc. to pay wages on Sundays and other holidays when the workman 1958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] and worker has no role in the decision . Again it is for the employer to decide whether an employee should be asked to work on a Sunday. Therefore if work is not assigned to any employee on a Sunday or a holiday and consequently there is no workson those days it is not due to any fault of the employee . Hence according to the learned counsel Sundays are to be counted for the purpose of Section 25B of the Act. It is true that Section 25B while defining continuous service , the interrupted service on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike or a lock out or a cessation of work not due to the fault of the worker are treated as days of continuous service . But the cessation of work referred by the lawyer of the worker does not partake the meaning meant by him. It is relevant to refer to page 1906 of "The Law of Industrial Disputes " by O.P. Malhotra , 6th edition , Vol . II .

Employce mentioned in S- 13 ( i ) (b) is defined in S-2(i ) of Minimum Wages Act. It is a wide definition. But it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the management that in order to make S - 13 ( i ) (b ) applicable to Scheduled Employment rates of minimum wages in respect of that employment has to be fixed under S- 3 of the Act by the concerned government . According to the learned counsel, so far as employment in banks is concerned , the minimum rate of wages is not fixed by the government . Therefore S- 13 ( 1 ) ( b ) has no application to employment in banks. No notification is produced by the worker to show that minimum rate ofwages is fixed in respect of employment in banks. However, according to the learned counsel for the worker, as per Kerala Amendment to the Schedule of Minimum Wages Act , Part - I , though item No. 24 is " Employment in Banks" , another item, i.e. item No. 21 'Employment in Shops & Establishments ' would also include banks. Therefore according to him even though minimum rate of wage is not fixed in respect of item No. 24, the minimum rate ofwages is fixed in respect of ' shop ' in item No. 21 (shops and establishments ). That is enough compliance with S - 13 ( i ) read with S -3 of the Act for banks also . If so , the management is bound to provide a paid holiday in a week to every employee .

14. Shop ' is defined under S -2 ( 15 ) of ' The Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 ' as follows:

"The expression cessation of work has to be interpreted ejusdem generis , i.c. , when a particular expression precedes a general expression , the latter should be interpreted in the light of the former. On the construction of this expression in the light of this rule, this cxpression has to be interpreted in the light of illegal strike or lockout and matters of similar nature which are not difficult to be foreseen like power failure , imposition of curfew, acceleration ofbandhs , breakdown of law and order and related matters , merely because a casual worker was willing to work, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to provide him work even if there is no work " .

Shop' means any premises where any trade or business is carried on or where services are rendered to customers , and includes offices , store rooms . godowns or warehouses , whether in the same premises or otherwise , used in connection with such trade or business but does not include a commercial establishment or a shop attached to a factory where the persons employed in the shop are allowed the benefits provided for workers under the Factories Act. 1948 ( Central Act 63 of 1948 ) . "

12. According to the learned counsel for the worker there is statutory compulsion to pay for Sundays and Holidays . The learned counsel pointed out ' (The ) Weekly Holidays Act, 1942. S -4 of that Act says that every person employed otherwise than in a confidential capacity or in a position of management in any shop or restaurant or theatre shall be allowed for each weck a holiday of one whole day. Shop ' is defined in that Act in Section- 2(d) which is wide enough to rope in many establishments . However during the course of the argument the learned counsel fairly conceded that the Weekly Holidays Act is repealed by Kerala Act , 34 of 1960. Therefore , as per The Weekly Holidays Act , Sunday cannot be treated as a holiday.

13. Then the learned counsel referring to Section 13( 1 ) (b ) ofMinimum Wages Act contended that after six days work a rest day has to be given to the worker. Section 13 ( 1) (b ) reads:

"provide for a day of rest in every period of 7 days which shall be allowed to all employees or to any specified class of employces and for the payment of remuneration in respect of such day of rest . "

Asper sub - clause ( c ) of that section , if an employee is made to work on the rest day he has to be paid at overtime rate.

The definition may take in services in banks as well . But the learned counsel admits that the banks are exempted as per S- 5 from the entire provisions of The Kerala Shops and Conumercial Establishments Act. by S.R.O. 980/81 and S.R.O. 501/82 . However , according to the learned counsel the exemption is from statutory liabilities and not from the purview of the Act . It is difficult to accept the contention. The exemption is from the operation of the entire provisions of the Act and not certain provisions of the Act . Thus no part of the Act is applicable to banks . It is not correct to say that the definition of Shop under The Shops and Commercial Establishments Act is applicable while other provisions are not applicable . Assuming for the sake of argument that the definition of Shop ' includes banks also still minimum rate of wages fixed for shops coming under item 21 of the Scheduled Employment of Minimum Wages Act, cannotbe treated as minimum rate of wages for 1959

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

W2(a) : Approach paper appended to Ext . W2 .

W3 :Photostat copy of complaint given to ALC(C) by workman dated 31-3-1994.

W4 :Photostat copy of complaint given to ALC(C) by workman dated 19-3-1994.

employment in item No. 24. A minimum rate separately for item No. 24 has to be fixed . That alone will be in compliance with S- 13 (i ) of the Act . Since the latter provision is not complied with, the bank is not obliged to provide a paid holiday per week to the worker . Hence Sundays cannot be counted as days actually worked for the purpose of S -25B ofI.D. Act .

WS :Photostat copy of of objection submitted by management before ALC(C) dated 27-4-1994.

W6 :Photostat copy of representation dated 10-5-1994 submitted to ALC (C ) by workman.

W7 :Photostat copy ofrejoinder filed by management bank before ALC (C) dated 12-5-1994.

W8 Photostat copy of letter dated 20-5-1994 given to ALC(C) by workman.

W9 :Photostat copy of letter dated 31-5-1994 given to ALC(C) byworkman,

W10 Photostat copy of Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings before ALC(C) dated 31-5-1994 .

Exhibits for the Management:

M1 series ( 12 Nos . ) : Vouchers नई दिल्ली, 13 मार्च, 2007 15. In the present case , it is an admitted fact that the worker was not paid for Sundays and holidays . The continuous service of 12 months preceding termination begins from April 1993 to March 1994. It is admitted by management that the worker had worked 218 days during this period. This is excluding Sundays and holidays . During 1983 to 1992 she had been working on an average 12 days per year. From 1-1-1993 to 30-6-1993 she had worked only 25 days . It is from July, 1993 to 2-3-1994 that she had worked on all working days as there was no permanent sweeper at that time. Therefore it is not correct to say that she had been working for 11 years continuously. The nature of the work, as shown by the number of days she had worked, reveal that it was mostly during leave vacancy that she was engaged until July 1993. Since she was not in continuous service for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding her termination, she is not entitled to the benefits of S - 25-Fof I.D. Act, either for retrenchment notice or consequential benefits in lieu of notice . The question of absorption does not arise at all in view of the decision in Secretary State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4SCC 1. Point is answered accordingly.

16. In the result ; an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Smt . A. Usha, Part-time Sweeper w.e.f. 3-3-1994 and for not considering her for absorption is justified and legal . The worker is not entitled for any relief. The parties will suffer their respective cost. The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

का.आ. 940.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मेसर्स यू.टी.आई. ए.एम.सी. ( प्रा. ) लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 20/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Dictated to the Persónal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 28th day of February, 2007 .

[से. एल-12011/293/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी P. L. NORBERT , Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

New Delhi , the 13th March, 2007 Witness for the Workman :

WW1 : Smt . A. Usha

Witness for the Management :

MW1 : Smt . Latha Sara Daniel

Exhibits for the Workman :

S.O. 940. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2004) ofthe 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 UTI AMC(P) Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-3-2007.

WI :Photostat copy of representation dated 7-3-1994 submittedby workman to management .

[No. L- 12011/293/2003 - IR(B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer W2 :Photostat copy of Order No. F - 3/3 / 104/07 dated 16-9-1980 issued by M/o Finance .

931G1/07-23 1960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

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

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 20 of 2004

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Unit Trust of India (AMC) Pvt . Ltd.

And

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management :Ms. N. Menon , A

For the Association :Mr. K.L. Deshpande . Legal Advisor

State

: Maharashtra

specifically provides that an officer or , as the case may be , other employee of the specified company and shall hold his office or service therein by the same tenure , at the same remuneration, upon the same terms and conditions , with the same obligations and with the same rights and privileges as to leave , leave fare concession , welfare scheme, medical benefit scheme , insurance, provident fund, other funds , retirement , voluntary retirement , gratuity and other benefits as he would have held under the Trust . Moreover Item No. 5 of Fourth Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is related with wages and holidays . In blatant contravention of provisions of Section 6 ( 1 ) of the Repeal Act , 2002 and Section 9 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 management had issued Circular on 17th January, 2003 temporarily discontinuing encashment or ordinary leave . Shri P.H. Mirikar , Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central - I ) Mumbai was pleased to hold conciliations from time to time and recorded the minutes and informed Ministry of Labour, Govt . of India vide his letter Ref. No. B.ALC - III/ 8 ( 63 )/2003 dated 18th November. 2003 as follows :

Mumbai dated the 27th day of February 2007

AWARD

"Finally management stated that the leave encashment facility will be continued and all workmen will be paid leave encashment , Union agreed with the statement of management . "

Inspite of giving solemn assurance before Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central - I ) Mumbai, management has not sanctioned and paid leave encashment of ordinary leave to any workmen so far.

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( the Act for short ) vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L - 12011 /293 / 2003 - IR ( B - il ) dated 11-3-2004 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

4. The Management of UTI Asset Management Company Pvt . Ltd. ( Employer ) contended that the facility of leave encashment is not covered by 4th Schedule to the Industrial Dispute Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and hence , there was no need of issuance of Notice under Section 9 -A of the Act.

"Whether the action of the management of Unit Trust of India in changing the service conditions withou issuing a notice of change under Section (A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the proposed changes relatingto grant of Housing Loan . Provident Fund . Contribution and reimbursement of course fee etc. is legal and justified ? If not , what relief is the workman/Union entitled to ?"

5. The Union filed the affidavit of Shri . Eeshwar Gurmasinghani in lieu of his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the management . The management filed the affidavit of Shri R. Subramanyam , Vice- Presdent in Human Resource Development Department with the management in lieu of his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the workman.

2. In the instant reference , there was four grievances of All India Unit Trust Employees Association for the workmen, out of which three demands are not pressed in this reference . The only demand which remains to be considered is asto whether discontinuance of leave encashment to the workmen is legal andjustified ?

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the partics and gone through the record. I have also perused the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. Section 9 -A of the Act is quoted below :

9 -A. Notice of Change : No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule , shall effect such change :

3. The contention of the Union is that since the inception of Unit Trust of India , the workmen were entitled to encash accumulated ordinary lead which was modified from time to time. On 31-5-2001 , the Unit Trust of India issued an administrative circular 22/ 2001-01 under the title "Staff-Workmen encashment of ordinary leave " . Thereafter Parliament enacted UTI ( Transfer ofUndertaking & Repeal) Act. 2002 which came in force on and from 29th day of October, 2002. Section 6 ( 1 ) of the above referred Act

( a) without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

1961

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र10, 1929

prescribed manner ofthe nature ofthe change proposed to be effected; or

(b) within twenty- one days of giving such notice:

Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change :

(a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any(settlement or award) ; or

8. It is the admitted position that the workmen under reference were the workmen of UTI. who were enjoying facility of leave encashment since its inception . It is the . admitted position that in the year 2002 parliament passed an enactment UTI (Transfer of Undertaking & Repeal Act of2002). It further admitted that as per Section 6 ( 1 ) of the UTI (Repeal Act) read with notification No. S.O. 40 (Ε ) dated January 15 , 2003 all the officers and employees of UTI became employees of the UTI Asset Management Company Private Limited with effect from 1st February2003, the appointed day of the Repeal Act, upon the same terms and conditions .

(b) Where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules , Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, Revised Leave Rules , Civil Service Regulations , Civilians in Defence Service (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government intheOfficial Gazette , apply.

The IVth schedule regarding conditions of service for change for which notice is required is quoted below :

( 1 ) Wages , including the period and mode of payment .

NowUTI Asset Management Pvt . Ltd. is a Company registered under the Companies Act which is operating in themutual funds industry competing with various mutual funds including multinational funds and governed by the regulations of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Fund Regulation 1996) . By means of Administrative circular No. 22/00-2001 dt . 31-5-2001 issued by the erstwhile United Trust of India, the existing scheme of encashment of ordinary leave for workmen has been revised which provides that: By the said Administrative Circular Number 22/2000-2001 dated May 31 , 2001 , staff members , who had completed three years of continuous service may encash, once in a calendar year, a minimum of 10 days and the maximum of50% of their Ordinary leave , ensuring a balance of one month Ordinary leave and on the date of encashment . Itwas further set out in the said administration circular, that the staff members need not to proceed on Ordinary Leave for encashment .

(2) Contribution paid , or payable, by the employer to any Provident fund or pension fund or for the benefit of the workmen under any law for the time being in force;

(3) Compensatory and the other alowances ;

(4) Hours of work and the rest intervals ;

(5) Leave with wages and holidays;

This scheme was also made applicable to the workmen under reference. Several regulations have been issued by Office in this respect for availing leave and its encashment. It is the admitted position that the workmen had been availing the facility of leave encashment which has now been withdrawn .

(6) Starting, alteration or discontinuance of shift working. Otherwise than in accordance with standing orders;

(7) Classification by grades ;

9. The question for consideration is as to whether the facility of leave encashment could be withdrawn without issuance of Notice under section 9 -A of the Act. (8) Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or changing usage ;

(9) Introduction of new rules of discipline , or alteration of existing rules , except in so far as they are provided in standing orders ;

or ( 10) Rationalisation , standardization improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen;

10. I feel that facility of leave encashment amounts to service conditions and its withdrawal amounts to change in service conditions . It is fully covered by sub - clause 5 Leave with wages and holidays and sub clause 8 withdrawal ofany customary concessions or privilege . The facility of leave encashment could be withdrawn by the management only after issuance of notice under section 9 - A and since the mandatory compliance of the provisions of Section 9 -A. of the Act is not there , it is illegal.

11. The learned counsel for the management placed before me the following six rulings :

(1) Indian Oxygen Limited versus Udaynath Singh , Reported in 1970 (2) LLJ 413 ( SC) ;

(11 ) Any increase or reduction (other than casual ) in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or shift , ( not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control) .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 1962

(ii) L. Robert D'Souza versus Executive Engineer , Southern Railway reported in 1982 ( 1 ) SCC 645 ;

(iii) Harmohinder Singh versus Kharga Canteen, Ambala Cantt . Reported in ( 2001 ) 5 SCC 540 ;

(iv) Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited versus Employees Union reported in ( 205 ) 6 SCC725:

(v) Voltas Switchgear Plant Employees' Union versus Voltas Switchgear Limited reported in (2001) 2 Bom C.R. 299 and

made by it before the concerned Conciliation Officer . Asstt . Labour Commissioner. ( Central ) I Mumbai , Mr. P.H. Mirikar. is not appreciable whereby the proceedings were recorded as, "Finally , management stated that leave encashment facility willbe continued and workmen will be paid leave encashment . Union agreed with the statement of the Management ." Ido not find any justification for saying now by the management that such type of statement was never given by the management before the Conciliation Officer and the proceedings were recorded wrongly. There appears to be no justification for the learned Conciliation Officer to record the proceedings incorrectly and thereby giving the impression thai the management finally agreed to leave encashment facility.

14 Hence . I conclude that withdrawal of leave encashment is illegal and unjustified being in violation to the Section 9 - A of the Act .

(vi ) B.J. Shewtty versus Air India reported in ( 2000) 4 Mah L.J. 274 and submitted that there was no need of any issuance of notice under section 9 -A of the Act since the facility of leave encashment is not covered by aforesaid sub clause 5 and 8 of IV schedule of the Act.

15 An Award is made accordingly .

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 941.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणःश्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-3-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 208/99- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th March . 2007

S.O. 941. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court . No. I. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of All India Radio and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 15-3-2007,

[ No. L -42012/208/ 99 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SANT SINGH BAL , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , NEW DELHI I.D. NO . 15/2000

In the matter of dispute between :

Sbri Harish Kumar S /o Shri Ran Singh , House No. 12 , Village & P.O. Majra Dabas ,

12. I have gone through the aforesaid six rulings and find that none of them is helpful to the management in showing that the facility of leave encashment could be withdrawn without issuance of notice . In the case of Indian Oxygen Limited ( supra ) the facility of selling carbide drums to its employees at concessional rates was not considered to be one of the conditions of service and hence its withdrawal was not found to be breach of the service conditions which is not the case here . In the case of Hindustan Steel Works ( Supra ) the Honourable Supreme Court held that wherein a particular practise or allowance or concession had become conditions of service under Section 9 -A would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule couldbe laid down in this case . The Honorable Supreme Court observed that it was a question of fact which could be decided only in the reference under Section 10 of the Act and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Hence . it is not helpful to the management over here . The case of Harmohinder Singh ( supra ) does not help on the facts and circumstances of the case because that was a case for termination . The case of Robert D'Souza ( supra ) was with respect to retrenchment which is quite different to the facts of the instant reference . In the case of B.J. Shetty ( supra ) the Voltas Switch Gear ( Supra ) are apparently distinguishable on the facts of the present case . Theydo not serve any purpose . In view of the above , none of the law cited by the learned counsel for the management is helpful in showing that the withdrawal of the facility of leave encashment was not covered vide sub clause 5 and 8 of the IV schedule of the Act . My considered opinion is that the withdrawal of the facility of leave encashment could be made only after issuing Notice under section 9 - A of the Act. Since it has not been complied with and the withdrawal is illegal and it is not enforceable under the law:

Workman

Kanjhawala , Delhi - 110081.

Versus

13. Before parting with the matter. I may add that the conduct of the management in retracting the admission 1963

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

ExecutiveEngineer, ( Civil) ,

..Management

CCW, All India Radio, Division No. 1 , Pushpa Bhawan , New Delhi - 110081

APPEARANCE :

Workman in person

None for management

AWARD

The Centrał Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-42012/208/99 /IR (DU) dated 27-01-2000 has referred the following industrial dispute to this.

Tribunal for adjudication:-

"Whether in the circumstances of the case Shri Harish Kumar, ex-beldar in Division No. 1 of CCW, All India Radio , New Delhi is eligible for regularization in services as per the scheme for casual labourers ( Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

month notice and retrenchment allowance under Section 25 (1 ) Industrial Disputes Act . The payment was duly received by the claimant. Photocopy of the receipt of payment is enclosed as annexure II . Claimant was not given temporary status as the scheme pertaining to temporary status applies to casual worker engaged prior to 1-9-93 the claimant was engaged against the work i.e. work charge basis on 1-8-94 which is not a cut off date according to the Department ofPersonnel Memorandum dated 10-9-93 copy ofwhich is Annexure III . The seniority list for the Beldars is being maintained Division wise and no junior person than the claimant has been engaged in the division of the respondent. The scheme to regulate the casual labour has beenformulated by Department ofPersonnel and Training dated 10-9-93 but for those who were engaged prior to 1-9-93 against the regular post, but the claimant was engaged as Beldar on Work Charge basis for specific work on 1-8-94 and is not entitled for the benefit of Vth Pay Commission recommendation . Claimant was also informed by the respondent that in case of any vacancy available in future in this Division, the name of the Claimant shall be considered for the same . The case was settled amicably on 7-8-98 in the chamber of Assistant Labour Commissioner.

2. Vide corrigendum dated 8-7-2002 the term of reference was amended as under :

"Whether the circumstances of the case Shri Harish Kumar, ex-beldar in Division No. 1 of CCW, All India Radio, New Delhi is eligible for regularization in services as per the scheme for casual labourers (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation) ? If yes, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

5. Written statement was followed by rejoinder wherein workman refuted controverted allegations and reiterated his claim whereafter the case was posted for evidence ofthe workman . Workman examined himself as WW1 and closed his evidence . The case was then posted for evidence of the management on 29-8-06 , 23-11-06 & 29-1-2007. Management failed to adduce evidence despite last opportunity on 29-1-2001 when it was proceeded ex partewhereafter the matter was posted for arguments.

6. I have heard the workman and perused the record and the documents placed on record.

3. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman claimed in his claim staternent that he had been working with the respondent management as casual worker on muster roll basis w.e.f. 1-8-84 till 10-8-98 without any break and any leave . His services were terminated w.e.f. 1-8-98 illegally in contravention of the relevant rules vide letter dated 28-10-73 . He was entitled to temporary status of casual labour as per rules . His juniors are still working with the respondent. He is entitled for the arrears as per 5th Pay Commission Interim Relief, report, O.T.A. and Bonus etc.He requested to be reinstated with full back wages and payment of arrears as per 5th Pay Commission, Interim Relief, O.T.A. alongwith bonus .

7. It is evident that the workman worked with the respondent. He claimed that he was engaged on casual basis but the management denies . According to the management he was engaged as claimed but admits that he was engaged for specific purpose and his services were disengaged on completion of work on 4-3-98 as per provisions of the I.D. Act after giving him one month notice or notice pay. Workman filed affidavit in evidence and examined himself as WW1 . In his cross -examination he admitted that he was retrenched by the management on 10-4-98 and before retrenchment he was given one month's notice Ex . WW1 / 11 . He also admitted during cross- examination that he was paid back wages and compromise Ex. WW1 /7 was recorded in the court and that he was given one month's retrenchment compensation in lieu of notice alongwith back wages and he admitted to be correct that he was engaged on muster roll . The workman is not entitledto temporary status and regularization as contained in letter dated 10-9-93 which is Annexure III of the reply as according to said scheme the temporary status is available 4. The claim has been contested by the respondent management by filing reply/written statement stating therein that he was engaged on muster roll, on work charge basis as beldar on 1-4-98 for specific work and the work completed on 4-3-98 and his services were disengaged w.e.f. 4-3-98 giving him one month notice as per provisions of I.D. Act . He approached A.L.C. for settlement and the case was settled by the A.L.C. and copy of the settlement is enclosed as annexure ' A' and as per settlement dated 7-8-98 he was paid Rs . 26652 towards wages w.e.f. 11-4-98 to 10-8-98 including, wages of one month in lieu of one

931G1/07-24 1964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007/ CHAITRA 10 , 1929

to the workman if the workman has worked for more than one year in view of the letter dated 10-9-93 i.e. to say according to the said letter workman is entitled to temporary status if he has worked for more than one year obviously from the date of issue of letter dated 10-9-93 . In the instant case admittedly as per his own claim he was engaged on 1-8-94 as casual labour on muster - roll basis . It is evident that he has not worked before 10-9-93 the date of the letter annexure III . As such the workman is not entitled to the temporary status and regularized scheme as contained in Annexure III letter dated 10-9-93 . From his deposition in the cross - examination it is evident that the workman's services were terminated in view compromise and that his services were retrenched and he was paid retrenchment compensation of the notice period. In my view his services have been retrenched under provisions ofSection 25 -F of the I.D. Act and he is not entitled to be retained and regularized in service as claimed . Reference is answered accordingly. File be consigned to record room.

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

Dated: 28-2-07

S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 942.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- I, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-84/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-3-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40011/14/2004- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi, the 15th March, 2007

S.O. 942. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 84/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , No. I , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Factory and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-03-2007 .

[No. L -40011/ 14/2004- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, MUMBAI PRESENT:

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Reference No. CGIT- 84 of 2004

Parties;

Employers in relation to the management of Telecom Factory

And

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mrs. Seema Chopda , Adv. For the Union

:Mr. J. P. Sawant , Adv.

State

:Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 01st day of March , 2007

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub- section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( the Act for short ) vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi Order No. L-40011 / 14 /2004 ( IR) DU dated 04-11-2004 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Factory, Mumbai in modifying the Memorandum dated 6-4-2000 vide Memorandum dated 22-6-2000 without giving any notice/ opportunity to the workman Smt. S. N. Kedare regarding fixation ofher pay in the pay scale of Rs . 4500-7000 instead of 5000-8000 is just and proper ? If not, 2. Whether the demands of the Union for promotion of Smt . S. N. Kedare from the post of Sr. TOA ( G) to the post of SS ( OP) with retrospective effect from 16th March. 2000 and payment of arrears thereof, is just and proper ? If so , to what relief the workman Smt . S. N. Kedare is entitled to ?"

2. The statement of claim has been filed by the National Federation of Telecom Employees BSNL Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) on behalf of the workman Smt . S. N. Kedare , Sr. Telecom Office Assistant General (hereinafter referred to as workman ) as the dispute was raised by the Union . The point in dispute is very short . The appointment and promotion of the workman is not disputed. The dispute is with respect to fixation and re- fixation ofpay on and after promotion . The workman was promoted vide Office Memorandum dt . 06-4-2000 w.e.f. 16-3-2000 to post of Senior T.O.A. (G) in the pay scale of Rs . 5000-150-8000 . The fixation of pay was made accordingly vide Office Orderdt . 13-4-2000. Thereafter , vide Office memorandumdt 22-6-2000 the pay scale of promotional post was reduced to Rs . 4500-7000 with effect from the date of promotion i.e. 16-3-2000. The copy ofthis office memorandum was given to the workman who filed her reply on 19-9-2000 after consulting the Union . In the 1965

भारत का राजपत्र : मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

[भाग II- खंड 3 (ii) ]

meantime , the department implemented the order dt. 22-6-2000 and recovered the excess amount paid to the workman in easy instalments .

3. The contention of the workman is that refixation of pay vide orderdt. 22-6-2000 and the recovery there under is illegal because the workman was not given any opportunity of hearing nor any notice was issued to her.

8. The learned counsel for the workman cited before me the case in between Shrikant Chintaman Joshi vs. Pune Municipal Corporation 2006 II CLR 110 (High Court Bombay) wherein the Honourable High Court has held that in the case of wrong fixation of pay and rectification thereafter the Corporation , was not entitled to seek recovery of excess payment made to the employee on account ofwrong fixation of pay. The facts ofthis case are quite different to the facts of the present case . In the aforesaid case , in fact, the employee was fixed the pay as back as in the year 1992 on promotion. The wrong fixation of pay was made at two stages . The employee retired in the year 2002. The mistake in fixation ofpay was pointed outby the Audit at the time of finalization of pension and in consequence to that department sought recovery from the retired employee from the Pension benefits and in that case the Honourable High Court of Bombay refused for. the recovery from the retired employee.

4. The contention of the employee in relation to the management of Telecom factory BSNL , Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as Management ) is that the order is not illegal or arbitrary. In fact , there are two grades for promotion. The workman was a Schedule Caste candidate. The promotion of the workman was made under One Time Bound Promotion Scheme to group ' C ' staff according to which the promotion in the next higher scale on completion of 16 years of continuous service could be made. For maintaining adequate representation to SC /ST candidates . In the matter of promotion, the management had issued orders to maintain the roaster to fill up the post reserved for SC/ ST candidates . Since the candidates having completed 16 years of service were not available to fill up the reserved post, the workman belonging to SC/ ST candidate and having completed 14 years of service only was promoted under the prescribed rules . The fixation of pay to the scale of Rs . 5000 could be made only on completion of 16 years of service and since the workman had not completed 16 years of service she was not entitled to the promotion scale of Rs . 5000-8000 and instead she was entitled to the pay scale of Rs . 4500-7000 . The fixation of pay was wrongly made by the Officer concerned and this mistake was immediately realized by the Management.. Accordingly, just after expiry of about three months , the office memorandum dt. 22-6-2000 was issued and the mistake in the fixation of pay scale , was rectified. The promotion ofthe workman was not withdrawn or modified. In fact , there was a mistake in fixation ofpay scale and the same was rectified under intimation to the workman. The question of any illegality or arbitrariness on the part ofthe Management does not arise. It may also be mentioned that recovery of excess amount which was just about 600 or so was made in easy instalments .

5. The workman filed the affidavit of Shri A. G. Kamble, Circle Secretary ofNational Federation ofB.S.N.L. Union in support ofthe claim of the workman in lieu of his examination in chief. He has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the management.

6. The management filed the affidavit of Shri V. Narayanan, Asst . General Manager (IE & PPA) . He has been cross examined by the learned counsel for the workman.

9. The facts of the present case are different here . It is a apparent case of bonafide mistake on the part of the Officer who wrongly fixed the pay of the workman on promotion in the pay scale to Rs . 5000-8000 . In fact, the workman was not entitled to fixation of pay in this pay scale since she had not completed 16 years of service which is not in dispute . The promotion was granted to the workman as a candidate of SC/ST on completion ofjust 14 years of service and for that promotion there was a different pay scale of Rs . 4500-7000. This mistake was noticed by the management within 3-4 months and accordingly the Office memorandum was issued on 22-6-2000 with a copy of the workman . No fresh notice was required in this respect . The workman knew that the order dt . 22-6-2000 is being passed in accordance with law. However, the workman filed the reply after 3 months on19-9-2000 and raised legal issues . I feel that the workman cannot compel the department for adhering to a bonafide mistake . The excess pay made on account of mistake on the part of the Officer concerned could be well recovered fromthe workman and there was nothing illegal andmore so when it was actually recovered in easy installments from the workman. The recovery is already complete much prior to the instant reference . It is also a admitted position that after completion of 16 years of service , the workman has now been placed in the pay scale ofRs . 5000-8000 and she has beenworking as such with the Management . The amount in question appears to be a petty amount . In view ofthe law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 2709 Union of India vs. Smt. Sujatha Venkatachalam, the order of recovery of excess paywhich was erroneously paid to the employee was legal . Similar is the position in the instant case where the excess pay has been paid to the workman on account of wrong fixation ofpaywhich fact was noticed quickly. The mistake is not such which may have the effect of estoppel on the part of the Management . The action of the management 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I have also perused the written submissions .

1966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31, CHAITRA 10, 1929

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Management : Mr. Kilpadi , Adv .

rahe Union

Mr L. V. Palekar, Adv cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any maner whatsoever . In this view of the matter I don't think it justifiable to direct the Managementto re - pay the amount of recovery made from the workman under wrong fixation ofpay.

Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 22nd day of February , 2007 .

AWARD

10. Hence , I conclude that the action of the management of Telecom Factory, Mumbai in modifying the memorandum dt . 06-4-2000 vide memorandum dt . 22-6-2000 to the workman regarding fixation ofher pay inthe pay scale of Rs . 4500-7000 instead of Rs . 5000-8000 isjust and proper . Hence , the workman is not entitled to any reliefat this juncture.

11. An Award is made accordingly. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS . Presiding Officer

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub set ! of Secuon 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 (the Act for short ) vide Government of India , Ministry ofLabour New Delhi Order No L - 12011 / 75 /2002 ( IR ) B - 1 ) dated 30-6-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedal , are as follows:

2 नई दिल्ली, 15 मार्च , 2007

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India . Zonal Office. Panji , Goa in terminating tie services of 7 Security Guards as per list attached меf. 15-1-2002 is legal and justified / if not, what reinst the workmen are entitled to ?"

का.आ. 943.- 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 जोद्योगिक अधिकरण- I , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-3-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-12011/75/2002- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th March , 2007

S.O. 943. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.32 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ l, abour Court I , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-3-2007 .

[No. L- 12011/75 /2002 - IR ( B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I , MUMBAI

PRESENT

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

Reference NO . CGIT -32 of 2003

PARTIES;

seven - seventeen years . They have been turned out from Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India

The statement of claim has been filed by Goman .Mazdoor Sangh through its General Secretary Shri P Gonkar ( hereinafter referred to as Union ) . It is contended that the State Bank of lodia ( hereinafter referred to as de Bank) is an industry as defined under Section 2 (j ) ofthe industrial Dispute Act ( hereinafter referred to as the Act The establishment of the Bank is covered under the provisions of Goa . Daman and Diu Shops and Establislument Act of 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as Shops Act) and the Bank is registered under it . It is alleged that seven security guards ( hereinafter referred to as workmen) were posted at the zonal office of the Bank as daily wagers w.e.f. 91-6-2001 on direct rolls of the Bank and prior to that theywere working as security guards through a contractor for the last seven to seventeen years without any break . The contract with the contractor was a sham and bogus one and in fact they were the employees of the Bank . Their dot timings were specified in the shift schedule by the Bank and they were under the direct supervision of theBank They used to sign the muster - roll maintained by the Bank They were granted leave by the Assistant Manager. Security , advances were also given by the Assistant Manager Security who also exercised disciplinary control over them . The workmen requested for regularization and absorption and wages at par with the regular staff but it was not considered. No appointment letter way issued to the workmen when they were employed by the Bank w.e.f.01-6-2001 . The nature of the work is perennial and they had been working as such for the last service w.c.f. 15-1-2002 without complying with the

provisions of the Act. Their termination amounts to And

violation of Section 25 - F ofthe Act and hence , it is illegal.

TheirWorkmen

The Bank has employed new security guards in the place 1967 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

ofthe workmen. The action of the Bank amounts to unfair labourpractice.

8. The second and main contention is as to whether the workmen have been illegally terminated . On this point there is no dispute about the facts . The workmen were employed through contractor for the last 7 to 17 years as security guards . The copy of the agreement entered in between the Bank and Ex- Services Security Co - operative Society Ltd. dt . 23-3-1987 has been filed on record by the workmen . The perusal of this agreement goes to show that the security guards were under direct control of the Society. Nothing is brought on record to show that this agreement was renewed from time to time . The Bank has notfiledany evidence in this regard. However, it is admitted position that the security guards remained employed through the Ex-Services Security Co- operative Society Ltd. upto 31-5-2001 . Hence , the security guards would be deemed to be the employees of the Society and they could not be said to be workmen of the Bank in the eye of law. The contention ofthe workmen that it is a sham and bogus contract cannot be considered at this juncture since it is not a issue referred under the instant reference and also keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the case of Chhathoo Lal Vs. The Management of M/s . Goramal Hariram Ltd. in Writ petition (C) No. 14191 of2004 decided on 12-12-2006.

3. The Bank filed the written statement and did not dispute the facts relating to employment of the workmen by the contractor as alleged, employment by the Bank directlywith effect from 01-6-2001as daily wagers and their termination w.e.f. 15-1-2002 . Their contention is that the Union has no locus standi to raise the dispute . The workmen are not entitled to regularization or absorption in service . The workmen did not work for a period of 240 days and hence, there is no violation of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workmen were employees ofEx - servicemen Security Service Co- operative Society (hereinafter referred to as Contractor) a body registered under the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959 for providing Security services with the Bank. The contract was for a specific term which was renewed from time to time and expired lastly on 31-5-2001 . The salary and other benefits were paid by the contractor and there was no relationship of employer and employees with the workmen. The provisions of Goa , Daman and Diu Shops Establishment Act , 1973 are not applicable to the Bank and hence , the grievance , if any, should be ventilated before the appropriate authority under the said Act . The plea ofthe workmen that the contract is a sham and bogus is not tenable .

4.The workmen filed the affidavit of Mr. P. G. Gaonkar, in lieu ofhis examination in chief in support of its claim .He has been cross - examined by the learned counsel for the Bank. The workmen also filed the affidavits ofMr. Vasant V. Sawal and Ravindra Deolkar in lieu of their examination in chief in support of its claim in the capacity of victim workmen. They have also been cross -examined by the learned counsel for the Bank. The Bank also filed the affidavit of Shri Captain Willi Raj , Assistant Manager Security oftheBank in lieu of his examination in chief. He has also filed the copy of the qualifications required for recruitment of guards and copy of security manual . He has been cross- examined by the learned counsel for the workmen.

5. The workmen have also filed the documents on record to show their employment through the contractor and also to show the direct employment by the Bank.

9.Admittedly, the workmen were directly employed by the Bank w.e.f. 01-6-2001 as daily wagers as a humanitarian gesture and prior to finalization of further contract as stated in para 2 (b) of the written statement . However, this humanitarian gesture did not last longer and it expired just after about 7½ months since the workmen were terminated w.e.f. 15-1-2002 . It is the admitted position that the workmen were employed orally and were dismissed orally. This conduct of the Bank is not appreciable in the eye of law. The Bank should have issued the appointment letters when it was pleased to appoint the workmen on the direct roll of the Bank under its direct control and supervision . The Bank was authorized to keep the daily wagers but the oral appointment is not appreciable for a nationalized bank. However, this lapse on the part of the Bank does not help the workmen to show any violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act since the workmen admittedly remained in employment of the Bank, for 7½ months only. They did not complete the period of 240 days in the employment of theBank and hence , there is no violation of the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act .

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record . I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the parties .

10.The workmen are not entitled to regularization or absorption with the Bank nor it is a issue referred in the instant reference. The law is settled on the point in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi AIR 2006 Supreme Court 1806. The rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the workmen did not help them in view of the ratio ofthe case of Umadevi ( supra) in view ofthe law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of 7. The first point for consideration is as to whether the Union has a right to raise the dispute on the behalf of the workmen . I feel that the statement of Mr. Gaonkar is sufficient to draw the inference that the Union has got the authority to raise the dispute . It had raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer also. The workmen are the members of the Union. The plea ofthe Bank that the Union has got no locus standi is not tenable .

1968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 31 , 2007 / CHAITRA 10, 1929 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

became the direct workmen of the Bank w.e.f. 1-6-2001 only and worked as such upto 15-7-2002 only meaning thereby they did not complete the period of 240 days and hence, there is no violation of Section 25 -F ofthe Act .

Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and Others 2001 ( 7 ) SCC 1 , the prohibition of employment of contract labour has been over - ruled and hence , the contract labour can be well employed if needed so in view of the exigency of the work.

13. The action of the Management of the Bank in terminating the services of the workmen cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified . Hence , the reference is to be dismissed accordingly but the workmen under reference should be employed as daily wagers till the final recruitment in accordance with law by the Bank. The workmen are not entitled for back wages .

AnAward is made accordingly.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 944.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मध्य रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पच्चाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-3-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-41012/247/2000- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th March, 2007

S.O. 944. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-3-2007.

[No. L -41012/247/2000 - IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 12/2001

Date :07-03-2007

Petitioner/

PartyNo. 1

11. The Bank has tried to show that the workmen under reference could not be employed as security guards since they did not fulfil the required qualifications for it . It is there as none of the workmen appears to have the requisite qualifications to work as security guards but it is not the case of the Bank that the services of the workmen have been dispensed with on account of non - fulfillment of the requisite qualifications . It is also not the case of the Bank that the Bank has recruited afresh security guards after following the rules and procedures of the Bank after calling the applications through employment exchange . The Bank has a right to employ right persons but for it, it is required to follow the procedure prescribed by it. It is definitely not warranted under the law that it relieves the workmen employed by it without following the required procedure and keeps other persons in their place without following the required procedure of recruitment . The Bank has also tried to state for the first time in the evidence that they were not the security guards for the premises of the Bank but they were kept as watchman for the residences oftheOfficers ofthe Bank . I feel that this make no difference as to whether the workmen were employed for watching the premises of the Bank or the premises of the Officers of the Bank. It may also be pointed out that the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Shops and Establishment Act of 1973 are not applicable to the Bank and hence , the workmen should have ventilated their grievance before the appropriate authority under the said Act . The Bank has not set out the case that it terminated the services of the workmen since their services were not rquired on account of lapse of work or for expiry of time for which the employment was made. In fact no appointment letters were issued setting out the terms and conditions of employment . Had it been so , the Bank would have been in a position to say that the employment of daily wagers lapsed on the expiry of the term of the employment . It is the admitted position that the zonal office , Panji , Goa of the State Bank of India dismissed the services of the workmen under the instructions of the Head Office which did not appreciate the idea of employment of daily wagers . Still, the Bank has not led any evidence to show that fresh recruitment has eitherbeen made or is likely to be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure of recruitment . The contention of the workmen that the Bank has employed new security guards in their place has not been refuted on record.

: Shri Bhagwat Rambhau Choudhary, Through the Vice President, Central Railway, Local Lokadhikar Samittee, Vidhyut Loco Shed (Rail Kamgar Sena) , Dist, Jalgaon.

PartyNo. 2

12. Despite the aforesaid lapses on the part of the Bank the legal position remains that the workmen could not be deemed to be the workmen of the Bank for the period they remained in employment through the contractor as contract was not sham and bogus . They

Respondent / : The Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal .

1969 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मार्च 31 , 2007/चैत्र 10, 1929

AWARD

Dated: 7th March , 2007

by item 25 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , should be declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -clause (vi ) of clause (n ) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a Public Utility Service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months.

[F. No. S- 11017/2/2006- IR(PL) ] GURJOT KAUR, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 मार्च, 2007 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Bhagwat Rambhau Choudhary, Through The Vice President, Central Railway, Local Lokadhikar Samittee , Vidhyut Loco Shed (Rail Kamgar Sena) , Dist . Jalgaon Party No. 1. The Divisional Railway Manager , Central Railway, Bhusawal Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L -41012/247/2000 -IR- (B -I) , dt . 19-3-2001 under clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether the action of the Management of C. Railway Bhusawal for not considering the report of the Medical Board in declaring Shri Bhagwat Rambhau Chaudhary in Medically unfit and thus denied compassionate appointment of his son is legal, justified and proper ? .If not what relief he is entitled ?"

का.आ. 946.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किलोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित है कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ ) के उप- खण्ड ( 6 ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3754 , दिनांक 1-9-2006 द्वारा हिन्दुस्तान एरोनाटिक्स लिमिटेड जो कि औद्योगिकं विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) कीप्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 8 में शामिल है, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 24-9-2006 से छः मास की अवधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

3. The petitioner has raised dispute and requested to appoint his son Shri Mahesh Bhagwat Choudhary on a compassionate ground as he has been declared unfit on medical grounds . However, the petitioner on 23-2-2007 requested the court to allow him to withdraw the case as he wants to approach the Hon'ble C. A. T. Accordingly he is allowed to withdraw and the case is disposed off for want of prosecution. Thus its stands as withdrawn for want ofprosecution.

Hence this award .

Dated: 7-3-2007

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनोंके लिए दिनांक 24-3-2007 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिएलोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

नई दिल्ली, 21 मार्च , 2007

[फा. संख्या एस-11017/1/ 2003 - आई आर ( पी. एल. ) ] गुरजोत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd March, 2007 का.आ. 945.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित है किकरेंसी नोट प्रेस , नासिक रोड में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 25 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घोषित किया जाना चाहिए ।

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ठ ) के उप- खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

S.O. 946. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in : pursuance of the provisions of sub-clause (vi ) of the clause (n) ofsection 2 of the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S. O. No. 3754 dated 1-9-2006 the service in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited which is covered by item 8 of the First Scheduleto the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) to be a public útility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period ofsixmonths from the 24th September , 2006.

[फा. सं. एस -11017/2/2006- आई आर ( पी. एल. ) ] गुरजोत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period bya further period of six months .

New Delhi , the 21st March, 2007

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi ) of clause ( n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central :

S.O. 945. Whereas the Central Governmer is S satisfied that the public interest required that the ser in the Currency Note Press , Nashik Road which is covered 1970

THE GAZETTE OF RUPA MARCH 31 .

JALURA 10, 120

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

The oid Scheme with effect from 1-6-1987.

provi until:

Government hereby declares the said industry i blic utility service for the purpores of the said Act for riod ofsix months from the 24th March, 2007

No $ -35015 / 15 / 2006 - SS - 111 SD. XAVIER , Under Secy.

IF No. S - 11017/ 12 PL) ] GURJOT &AUR Secy

मान, 2007

नई दिल्लो, 22 मार्च , 2007

का.आ. 947. जबकि मैसर्स विप्रो सिस्टम लिमिट सके

पश्चात् प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में उल्लिखित ) ने कर्मचारी एवं

अधिनियम के रूप में उल्लिखित ) की धारा 17 की उप था के

प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) उस चात् खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन किया है ।

विवाद

०७४- केन्द्रीय साकार रस्तुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित यति है, औद्योगिक विजाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 के खण्ड के उप - खण्ड के उपबंधों के १ सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अभिसूचना संख्या का. अन्य 26-9 2006 द्वारा बैंकिंग उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक 4. 1947 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की है. को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए

2006 में कः मास की अवधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी

में ऐसा प्रविि दिनांक सेवा का 1.4 अनुसर आ.

को छ.

की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि विलग बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

2. और जबकि केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान के संबंध में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि नियम, जवत अभिकी धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कर्मचारियों के लिए कुल नहींहै और कर्मचारी , उक्त अधिनियम के अंतर्गत अशवा इसी प्रकार के किसीअन्य प्रतिष्ठान में कर्मचारियों के संबंध में कर्मचारी निधि स्कीम, 1952 ( इसके पश्चात् स्क्रीम के रूप में उल्लिसित निर्गत प्रदान किए जा रहे अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभों का भी फत्यथा हे हैं ।

14)

काप्र

के प्रयं लिए

গাঁয়ে নি बाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का -७० ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों १२, केन्द्रीय सरकार लक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम 0 दिनांकः 17-4-2007 से छः मास की कालावधिके कोई संत्रा योषित करही है ।

संख्या एस-11017/ 5/97 - आई आर ( पी . एल. ) ]

की 3. अत. , अब, केन्द्र सरकार उक्त अधिनियमगध उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शविनयों का प्रभाग ने हुए, और समय - समय पर इस संबंध में विनिर्दिष्ट शर्ती के अध्यधीद्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त स्क्रीम के सभी उपबंधों से 1-6-1987 से अगली अधिसूचना तक छूट प्रदान करते है ।

गुरजोत कौर, संयुक्त सचिव [ संख्या एम -35015/15/ 2006 [1 ]

len Delht the 28th March , 2007

एस. डी. जेवियर, ३० सचिव

New Delhi, the 22nd March , 2007

been

S.O. 947. Whereas M/ s . Wipro Siste Ltd.

claus:

Gove

3987

(hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub- section ) oftion 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Misceli derous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) ( hereinafter reftated to as the Act ) .

isco

pursu (14 Dispi.. for ti from

18. Whereas the Central Government having d that the public interest so requires that in the provisions of sub- clause ( vi ) of the section 2 of the Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 aselared by the Notification of the on of india in the Ministry of Labour S. O. No. 16-9-2000 the service in Banking Industry which rem 2 of the First Schedule to the Industrial 1147 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service e of the sand Act , for a period of six months October 2000

thereas, the Central Government is of opinion werest requires the extension of the said period rotod of six months .

that pi by a

by the

of th

2. And whereas in the opinion of the atral Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respectto the rates of contributing are not less favourable to employees therein tha : Those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the emprees are also in enjoyment of other provident and wefits provided under the said Act or under the net ees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter refer to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees it at establishment of similar character . ther

Gove..

Utilis

ofsix

Therefore , in extreise of the powers conferred ete sub-clause ( vi ) of clause ( n) of section 2 suial Disputes Act . 1947 , the Central hereby declares the said industry to be a Public or the purposes of the said Act , for a period fronthe 17th April 2007 .

No. S - 11017/5 / 97 - IR (PL) ! GURJOT KAUR, Jt . Secy.

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers corred by clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 17 of Act and subject to the conditions specified in this from timeto time, the Central Government , bereby, the said establishment from the operation of said gard mpts the

Teri New Delle 110064

Prusted by the Manager , Gavidia Press , Ring R and Published by the roller of Publicat...

110054, 2007