This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

भारतकाराजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 20]

No. 20]

नई दिल्ली, मई 13 मई 19 , 2007 , शनिवार/वैशाख 23- वैशाख 29 , 1929 NEW DELHI , MAY 13 MAY 19 , 2007, SATURDAY/VAISAKHA 23- VAISAKHA 29 , 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 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 ofthe Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग )

(कार्यालय , आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सेवाकर ) लखनऊ , 8 फरवरी , 2007

सं. 01/2007-कस्टम ( एन.टी. )

01-07-94 of the Government of India, Ministry ofFinance , Department of Revenue, New Delhi , issued under Section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962, I hereby declare Village Guggor located in Tehsil Fatehpur of the District Barabanki in the State of Uttar Pradesh to be a warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (No. 52 of 1962 ) forthe limitedpurpose of setting up 100 % Export Oriented Undertakings (100 % EOUS) .

[F. No. V(30)Tech/warehouse/08 /07] C. MATHUR , Commissioner

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग) नई दिल्ली, 10 मई , 2007

का.आ. 1437- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 152 के अंतर्गत जारी दिनांक01-07-94 की अधिसूचना सं. 33/94 - कस्टम (एन.टी. ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का उपयोग करते हुए मैं , एत‌द्वारा , सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 की सं. 52 ) की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के जिला बाराबंकी की तहसील फतेहपुर में स्थित ग्राम गुग्गोर को 100 प्रतिशत निर्यातोन्मुख उपक्रम स्थापित करने के सीमित प्रयोजन के लिए भांडागारण स्थल घोषित करता हूं । [फा. सं. V( 30 ) टेक/वेयर हाऊस/08/07 ]

सी. माथुर, आयुक्त

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Departurent ofRevenue)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICETAX)

का.आ. 1438.- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम , 1934 ( 1934 का 2 ) की धारा 8 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( घ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , डॉ. डी. सुब्बाराव , सचिव , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग, वित्त मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से तथा अगला आदेश होने तक , श्री अशोक के. झा के स्थान पर भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

Lucknow , the 8th February , 2007 No. 01/2007 - CUS . (NT)

[फा. सं. 9/07/2007-बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , उप सचिव S.O. 1437. In exercise of the powers conferred on me by the notification no . 33 /94- Cus . ( NT) dated

(3113)

2324 GI/2007 3114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] (Department of Economic Affairs) (BankingDivision) New Delhi , the 10th May, 2007

जयपुर मंडल के अन्तर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित सात उपमंडल कार्यालयों को जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है : --

1. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक , अजमेर उपमंडल , आनासागर बारादरी , अजमेर ।

2. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक , अलवर उपमंडल , 3/413 काला कुँआ, हाउसिंग कॉलोनी , अलवर , राजस्थान । S.O. 1438. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934), the Central Government, hereby nominates Dr. D. Subbarao , Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs , Ministry of Finance, to be a director on the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri Ashok K. Jha .

3. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक , भरतपुर उपमंडल , भरतपुर फोर्ट, भरतपुर , राजस्थान ।

4. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक, चितौड़गढ़ उपमंडल, तोपखाना बिल्डिंग , चितौड़गढ़ किला , चितौड़गढ़ ।

[F. No. 9/07/2007 -BO -IJ G.B. SINGH , Dy. Secy.

5. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक , डीग उपमंडल , डीग महल , डीग , जिला- भरतपुर, राजस्थान ।

वस्त्र मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 11 मई , 2007

6. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक, कोटा उपमंडल , 1 - च -12 , टीचर्स कॉलोनी , केशवपुरा , कोटा- राजस्थान ।

7. कार्यालय संरक्षण सहायक , जयपुर उपमंडल , पुण्डरीकजी की हवेली, ब्रह्मपुरी , जयपुर , राजस्थान ।

[फा. सं. 1-1/2005 - हिन्दी ] मोहिनी हिंगोरानी, निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) का.आ. 1439.-केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 61) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कौन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अध्यधीन इस अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के सदस्यों के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों का नामांकन अधिसूचित करती है ।

MINISTRY OF CULTURE (O. L. Section) New Delhi , the 18th April, 2007

उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की धारा 4(3 ) ( जे) के अंतर्गत केंद्र सरकार द्वारा नामित।

श्री एस.ई. मोटनवाला , जी-9 , डॉक्टर हाऊस , ऊनापानी रोड, लाल दरवाजा , सूरत

[फा. सं. 25012/56/99 - रेशम ] भूपेन्द्र सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES New Delhi , the 11th May, 2007

S.O. 1440. In pursuance of Sub - rule 4 of 10 of the Official Language (use for Official purpose of the Union) rules 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following 7Sub -circle offices under the Ministry of Culture, Superintending Archaeologist , Jaipur Circle , more than 80% staff ofwhich have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Office of the Conservation Assistant , Ajmer Sub- Circle, Anasagar, Baradari , Ajmer .

2. Office of the Conservation Assistant, Alwar Sub- Circle,3/413 , Kala Kuan, Housing Colony , Alwar , Rajasthan.

11 S.O.1439. In exercise of powers conferredby Sub- section ( 3) of Section 4 of the Central Silk Board Act . 1948 , the Central Government hereby notifies the nomination of the following persons to serve as member of the Central Silk Board for a period three years from the date of this notification subject to the provisions of the said Act.

3. Office of the Conservation Assistant, Bharatpur Sub-Circle, Bharatpur Fort, Bharatpur Rajasthan .

Nominated by the Central Government under Section4( 3) (j) oftheAct.

Shri S.E Motanwala, G-9 , Doctor House , Unapani Road, LalDarwaja, Surat

4. Office of the Conservation Assistant, Chittorgarh Sub-Circle, Topkhana Building, Chittorgarh Quila , Chittorgarh.

[F. No. 25012/56/99-Silk] BHUPENDRA SINGH , Jt. Secy .

5. Office of the Conservation Assistant, Deeg Sub- Circle, Deeg Mahal , Deeg Distt. Bharatpur , Rajasthan .

संस्कृति मंत्रालय

(राजभाषा प्रभाग )

6. Office ofthe Conservation Assistant, Kota Sub-Circle 1- ch - 12 , Teacher's Colony , Keshavpura , Kota, Rajasthan.

नई दिल्ली, 18 अप्रैल, 2007

7. Office of the Conservation Assistant , Jaipur Sub-Circle, Pundrikazi ki haveli, Brahmpuri , Jaipur, Rajasthan.

का.आ. 1440.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम-4 के अनुसरण में संस्कृति मंत्रालय , के अधीन अधीक्षण पुरातत्वविद्,

[F. No. 1-1/2005-Hindi ] MOHINI HINGORANI, Director ( OL) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

3119 पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 16 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1441.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 4928 दिनांक 20 दिसंबर 2006 द्वारा पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे उसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा जाएगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचनाएं प्रकाशित कर , लिक्विफाइड पैट्रोलियम गैस (एल.पी.जी) के परिवहन के लिए हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत से पंजाब राज्य के नाभा होते हुए पंजाब राज्य के जालंधर तक इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट, तहसील- समाना, जिला- पटियाला, पंजाब राज्य की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और, उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को 14-23 फरवरी 2007 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिर्पोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

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

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तिथि से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 3116

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

अनुसूची

राज्य:पंजाब

जिला: पटियाला

तहसील: समाना

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

वर्गमीटर हदबस्त संख्या

मुस्तील संख्या

एयर

खसरा /

किला संख्या

हेक्टेयर

शाहपुर

4/1

4/2

14/1

14/2

14/3

25/1

25/2

15/1

15/2

23.

12/2

22/1

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3117

'भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

शाहपुर

11/2

25/2

24/1

24/2

105

106

107

171

275

276

298

305

306

मावी कलां

23/1

62'

02 3118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA29, 1929

5 मावी कलां

3/2

5/1

5/2

1/1

11/2

1/1

1/2

10/1

00 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] 6

25 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

5 मावी कलां

8/2

12/1

12/2

18/1

10/1

10/2

111

112

188

325

355

357

359

369

370

374

15/1

सहेजपुर कलां

16/1

16/2

17/1

17/2

3119 6

51 3120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

5 1

सहेजपुर कलां

25/1

25/2

6/1

6/2

15/2/1

15/2/2

10/1

11/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

9/2

17/1

25/2

15/1

15/2

1/1

1/2

10/1

10/2

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] 6

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

2 सहेजपुर कला

182

कोटली

6/1

6/2

12/1

12/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

3/2

15 डोड़रा

6/1

6/2

3121 5

26 00

25 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929 322

डोड़रा

22/1

10/3

11/2

12/1

20/1/1

20/1/2

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

20/2/2/1

00 00

20/2/2/3

21/1

21/2/1

21/2/2

144

158

भेड़पुरी

5/1

5/2

-01

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

312日

'भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007 /वैशाख 29, 1929

00 भेड़पुरी

15/1

15/2

16/1

16/2

25/1

25/2

00.

6/1

6/2

177

00 भामना

17/1

14/2

20/1

20/2

6/1

00 6

04 3124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29, 1929 1

5 भामना

25/2

10/1

10/2

11/2

21/1

21/2

19/1

19/2/1

19/2/2

20/1

20/3

21/1

21/2

22/1

11/2

101

120

12/1 [PART II-SEC. 3( ü) ] 6

05 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929 1

5 भामना

120

12/2

19/1

19/2

145

161

162

19/1

19/2

22/1

187

8/2

23/1

23/2

24/1

198

226

228

241

523

312.5 6

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA29 , 1929

3126

527

भामना

599

616

कहानगढ़

12/1

12/2/2

199

242

बिशनपुर

22/1

9/1

9/2

PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

01 312

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5 1

18 बिशनपुर

13/1

13/2

18/1

18/2

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2

18/1

18/2

23/2

18/1/1

18/1/2

18/2

.00

23/1

2/2

3/1

8/2

198

200

202

224

01 3126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA29 , 1929 1

00 कुलबरछा

17/1

17/2

14/1

24/1

24/2

4/2

6/1/1

6/2

15/1

15/2

20/1

20/2

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 6

60 3129

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

कुलबरघ्न

15/4

16/1

16/2

180

191

260

413

437

440

438

12 कादराबाद

13/1

13/2

10.

[फा. सं. आर-25011/13/2006-ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 16th May, 2007

S. O. 1441.-Whereas by notification of the government of India in the ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number -S.O . 4928 , dated 20th December 2006, issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying a pipeline for transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) from Panipat in the State of Haryana to Jallandhar in the State of Punjab via Nabha in the State of Punjab by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the Tehsil Samana , District Patiala (Punjab) .

And, whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public between 14th 23rd February 2007;

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

2324 G1/07--3 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29, 1929

3130

[PART II SHC. 3 ( ii) ] And, whereas the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right ofuser 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 land specified in the schedule appended to this notification is acquired;

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

SCHEDULE

District: Patiala Tehsil : Samana

Name of Village

Khasra / Killa No.

Hadbast No.

Mushtil No.

Shahpur

4/1

4/2

14/1

14/2

14/3

25/1

25/2

15/1

15/2

24 State: Punjab

Area

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

28.

.77

00 3131

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Shahpur

12/2

22/1

11/2

20.

25/2

24/1

.00

24/2

10 10

11.

11 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929 3132

00 Shahpur

105

106

107

171

275

276

298

305

306

Mawi Kalan

3/1

3/2

5/1

5/2

1/1

11/2 [PART II--SEC . 3 (ii) ] 6

52 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007 /वैशाख 29, 1929 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

20 Mawi Kalan

1/1

10/1

8/2

12/1

12/2

18/1

10/1

10/2

3133

06 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29, 1929 3134

Mawi Kalari

111

112

188

325

355

357

359

369

370

374

15/1

00 Sahejpur Kalan

16/1

16/2

17/1

17/2

00 00 00

25/1

25/2

6/1

6/2

15/2/1

15/2/2

10/1

11/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

9/2

17/1

25/2 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] 6

00 03 03

01 3135

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

20 Sahejpur Kalan

15/1

15/2

1/1

1/2

10/1

10/2

182

Kotli

6/1

6/2

12/1

12/2

18/1

18/2

19/1

19/2

23 6

00 3136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29 , 1929

3/2

Kotl

15 Dodara

6/1

6/2

22/1

10/3

11/2

12/1

20/1/1

20/1/2

[PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii)] 5

25 00

00 3137

भारत का राजपत्र मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

20/2/2/1 Dodara

20/2/2/3

21/1

21/2/1

21/2/2

144

158

Bhedpuri

5/1

5/2

15/1

15/2

16/1

16/2

25/1

25/2

6/1 2324 G1/07-4

62.

1.1

00 3138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29 , 1929 1

6/2

00 Bhedpuri

177

17/1 Bhamnna

14/2

20/1

20/2

6/1

25/2

10/1

10/2

11/2

21/1

21/2

19/1

19/2/1 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

03 3139

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

19/2/2 Bhamnna

20/1

20/3

21/1

21/2

22/1

11/2

101

120

12/1

12/2

120

19/1

19/2

145

161

6 6

05 05

00 3140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29, 1929

162

1 Bhamnna

19/1

19/2

22/1

187

8/2

23/1

23/2

24/1

198

226

228

241

523

527

Bhamnna

599

616

Khangarh

12/1

12/2/2

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

01 [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

314

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

4 1

24 Khanganh

199

242

00 Bishanpur

22/1

9/1

9/2

00 00 08

13/1

00.

13/2

18/1

18/2

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2 6

06 06

02 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929 3142

13 Bishanpur

18/1

18/2

23/2

18/1/1

18/1/2

18/2

23/1

2/2

3/1

8/2

198

200

202

224

Kulbarchha

17/1

17/2

14/1

24/1

24/2

26 PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

00 3143

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4/2

Kulbarchha

6/1/1

6/2

15/1

15/2

20/1

20/2

21 5

15/4

16/1

16/2

180

191

260

413

437

440

438

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA29, 1929

3144

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

பு

7 1

Kadrabad

13/1

13/2

[F. No. R -25011 /13/2006 -O.R. -I ]

S.K. CHITKARA, Under Secу.

नई दिल्ली, 16 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1442.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 4927 दिनांक 20 दिसंबर 2006 द्वारा पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे उसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा जाएगा) की धारा 3 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचनाएं प्रकाशित कर, लिक्विफाइड पैट्रोलियम गैस (एल.पी.जी) के परिवहन के लिए हरियाणा राज्य में पानीपत से पंजाब राज्य के नाभा होते हुए पंजाब राज्य के जालंधर तक इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु, उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट, तहसील- पातड़ा, जिला- पटियाला, पंजाब राज्य की भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और , उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को 9-12 फरवरी 2007 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

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

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तिथि से, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 3145

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य: पंजाब

जिला:पटियाला

तहसील : पातड़ा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हदबस्त संख्या

हेक्टेयर

खसरा /

किला संख्या

मुस्तील संख्या

185

उगोकी

100

20/1

20/2

7/1

15/1

15/2

5/1

5/2

2324 G1/ 07-5 3146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

5 उगोकी

185

112

117

118

7/3

00 , ननहेड़ा

3/1

3/2

19/1

7/1

7/2

5/1

5/2

6/1

6/2

20/2

9/1/2

9/2/2

9/2/3

10/1

00 [PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)] 6

07 3147

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

5 1

10/2/1

ननहेड़ा

10/2/2

11/2

8/1

8/2

18/1

18/2

14/2

1/1

1/2

00 6

08 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929 3148

ननहेड़ा

20/1

16/1

16/2

101

5/2

105

120

123

143

150

175

248

249

252

253

265

282

293

नागरी

2 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6

01 01

04 03

01 01

52 01

83 06

25 00

13 11

02 02

13 11 3149.

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नागरी

2/1

2/2

12/1

00.

12/2

8/1

8/2

169

चुपकी

18/1

18/2

23 6

12 3150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIΑ : ΜΑY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA29, 1929

2 चुपकी

8/2

9/1

9/3

12/2

19/1

19/2

160

161

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

61 00

04 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/13/2006- ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th May. , 2007

S. O. 1442.- Whereas by notification of the government of India in the ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas , published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 4927 , dated 20 December 2006 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User 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 this notification for the purpose of laying a pipeline for transportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG ) from Panipat in the State of Haryana to Jallandhar in the State of Punjab via Nabha in the State of Punjab by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited in the Tehsil Patran , District Patiala (Punjab) .

And, whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public between 9th - 12th February 2007;

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

And, whereas the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right ofuser 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 land specified in the schedule appended to this notification is acquired;

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

315 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

SCHEDULE

District: Patiala

State: Punjab

Tehsil : Patran

Area

Name of Village

No. Hadbast Mushtil No.

Are

Khasra / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre

185

Ugoki

00 .

20/1

20/2

7/1

15/1

15/2

5/1

5/2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29, 1929 3152

5 1

185

65 Ugoki

112

117

118

7/3

Nanhera

3/1

3/2

19/1

7/1

7/2

5/1

5/2

6/1

6/2

20/2

9/1/2

9/2/2

9/2/3

10/1 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

08 3153

'भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

10/2/1

Nanhera

10/2/2

11/2

8/1

8/2

18/1

18/2

14/2

1/1

1/2

1 2324G1/07--6

08 315/4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA29 , 1929 1

Nanhera

20/1

16/1

16/2

101

5/2

105

120

123

143

150

175

248

249

252

253

265

282

293

00 Nagri

00 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ] 6

11 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007 /वैशाख 29, 1929

00 Nagri

2/1

2/2

12/1

12/2

8/1

8/2

169

Chupki

00 ,

18/1

18/2

3155 6

65 3156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

Chupki

8/2

9/1

9/3

12/2

19/1

19/2

160

161

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)]

[F. No. R -25011 /13 /2006 -O.R. - 1 ] S.K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 18 मई , 2007

का. आ. 1443.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकाहत में यह आवश्यक प्रतात होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएस इडस्ट्राज लिमिटेड क गौवा भ उत्तरा। दाक्षणी अपतट में खोज ब्लाकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में अहमदनगर जिले के विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रांन्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित हैं , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा (3 ) की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एल . आर . गोतारणे, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलायन्स गैस ट्रांन्सपोर्टेशन इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, विशाल आर्केड दूसरी मंजिल , चिचवंड स्टेशनरोड चिचवंडगांव, पुणे 411033 , महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3157

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/ वैशाख 29, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

जिला : अहमदनगर मंडल/तहसील/तालक : जामोड

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र आर ओ यु अजित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर / गट नंबर

गांव का नाम

526

527

528

529

530

सीएयर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

गाव सीमा के पास गाडी रास्ता

2) पोटेवाडी

135

136

137

118

138

140

147

146

145

गट नंबर 144 और 145 के बीच का

रास्ता

144

153

155

156

157

168

169

170

167

171

172

171 3) রनंज

172

461

462

471

467

470

659

00 3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

660

00 3) नान्नंम ( निरंतर...)

662

657

656

653

665

649

666

667

811

812

813

गट नंबर 807 और 819 के बीच का

रास्ता

807

819

820

806

856

857

गट नंबर 857 और 887 के बीच का

नाला

887

886

864

972

974

973

975

गट नंबर 975 और 982 के बीच का

गाडीरास्ता

982

983

966

1057

1059

1060

1061

1056

1055

गट नंबर 1054 और 1066 के बीच का

नाला

1054

1066

गट नंबर 1054 और 1066 के बीच का 00

गाडी रास्ता

1065

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

66 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3159

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

2 1

1075 3) नान्नंज ( निरंतर... )

1076

1079

1078

1080

1081

1083

1084

130 4) राजेवाडी

131

133

135

129

172

186

185

184

183

182

201

63 5) बावी

299

298

296

297

303

304 4

गट नंबर 286 में नाला

286

285

284

283

282

281

279

278 00

गट नंबर 279 में नाला

276

274

273

272 39

38 31.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29 , 1929

271 5) बावी ( निरंतर... )

270

269

265

264

263

247

248

249

218

194

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

गट नंबर 995 और 200 के बीच का

रास्ता

195

196

352 6) फक्रायाद

353

344

343

342

341

340

253

256

257

259 57

गट नंबर 260 और 265 के बीच का

रास्ता

260

265 00

गट नंबर 223 में नाला

223

77 00

गट नंबर 78 में नाला

117

116

गांव सीमा के पास की नदी 00

29 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

3161 3

गाव सीमा के पास की नदी

7) वंजारवाडी

32 00

गट नंबर 32 और 41 के बीच का रास्ता

गट नंबर 41 में ड्रेन

35 8) खामगांव

गाव के सीमा के पास का गाडी रस्ता

34 00

गट नंबर 34 और 36 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

50 04

00 00

गट नंबर 32 और 42 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

74 9)अरणगांव

747

746 00 06 88

3450 52

गट नंबर 742 में नाला

745

742

741

737

736

738 00

गट नंबर 734 और 738 के बीच का

राज्यमार्ग -53 2324 GI /07-7

91 3162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

734 9) अरणगांव ( निरंतर ... )

733

676

692

693

694

719

718

717

716

715

714

229 10) कोनगांव

230

231

232

233

234

238

237

239

241

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

गट नंबर 239 और 179 के बीच का

गाडीरास्ता

180

179

178

175 03

गट नंबर 175 और 316 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

316

314

313

312

311

310

गट नंबर 311 और 317 के बीच नाला

317

309

307

306

302 00

गट नंबर 306 और 302 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

301

299 30

66 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

297 10) डोनगांव ( निरंतर... )

296

295

293

292

288

287

286

281

280

275

384

385

गट नंबर 388 में नाला

386

जिला: अहमदनगर मंडल/तहसील/ तालुक : अहमदनगर

3163 4

.00

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र 00

गाव सीमा के पास की नवी

1) वाटेफळ

233

223

221

220

219

218

217

53 2) साकत- खुर्द

गट नंबर 55 और 56 के बीच का रास्ता

56 00

गट नंबर 56 और 156 के बीच राज्यमार्ग

-141

183 00

गट नंबर 183 और 70 के बीच का रास्ता

137

136

134

123

122

121

109

गट नंबर 109 में रास्ता

05 31614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

108 2) साकत खुर्द ( निरंतर... )

160

106

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

गट नंबर 105 और 106 के बीच गाडी

रास्ता

105

103

102

101

100

गट नंबर 100 में गाडी रास्ता

474 3)वाळकी

473

475 00

गट नंबर 475.और 480 के बीच का

रास्ता

480

497

496

495

503

504

509

507

506 00

गट नंबर 506 और 544 के बीच का

रास्ता

544

545

547

548

554

555 06

गट नंबर 555 और 561 के बीच का

गाडीरास्ता

561 00

गट नंबर 561 और 587 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

587

637

636

635

634

633 00

90 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

632

00 3) वाळकी ( निरंतर... )

631

630

629

328

327

326

625

624

623

3165

गट नंबर 623 और 845 के बीच का

रास्ता

845

1332

842

843

844

839

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

गट नंबर 960 और 907 के बीच का

नाला

986

00 88 05

गट नंबर 986 और 670 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

670

992

1331

965

951

879

962

00 00

गट नंबर 962 और 956 के बीच का

रास्ता

956

961

960

959

958

00 02

10 3166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

2 1

957 3) वाळकी (निरंतर ... )

गट नंबर 957 और 956 के बीच का

नाला

गट नंबर 956 के बीच का नाला

गट नंबर 956 और 780 के बीच का

रास्ता

780

778

1027

1028

777

गट नंबर 777 और 1025 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

1025

1029

1030

गट नंबर 1030 और 1038 के बीच का

रास्ता

1038

1037

1036

162 4) वाबुडर्डीबैंड

160

161

गट नंबर 161 और 160 के बीच का

नाला

159

158

157

149

146

147

148

145

125

139

141

134

137

136

129

गट नंबर 138 और 129 के बीध का

राज्यमार्ग-10

गट नंबर 129 और 76 के बीच का नाला

गट नंबर 58 में नाला

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

06 3167

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

75 4) बाबुर्डी बैंड ( निरंतर... )

गट नंबर 69 में नाला

84 5) खडकी

134 6) सारोळा कासार

135

136

137

138

गट नंबर 138 और 142 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

142

143

गट नंबर 143 में नाला

171

172

169

174

179

180

182

183

184

185

187

186

850

गट नंबर 850 और 8 के बीच का नाला

गट नंबर 7 में रास्ता

गट नंबर 3 और 770 के बीच का रास्ता

770

767

769

775

776

747

858

00 3168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA29 , 1929

786 6) सारोळा कासार ( निरंतर... )

787

788

779

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

गट नंबर 779 और 693 के बीच का

रास्ता

693

691

692

689

702

703 00

गट नंबर 703 और 669 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

669

704

668

667

666 मंडल/तहसील/तालुक : पारनेर

जिला: अहमदनगर

602 1) अस्तगांव

628 00

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र 00

गट नंवर 605 और 602 के बीच का

नाला

622

644

643

642

647

629

336

628

639

640

641

335

605

648

334

337

649 07

गट नंबर 649 और 656 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

604

656

319

658 00

17 भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ))

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

3169 1

5 अस्तगांव (निरंतर...)

328

327

323

148

326

325

311

62 05

313

603

10 33

गट नंबर 658 और 535 के बीच का बहुना

303

492

45 00

680

गट नंबर 535 में रास्ता

535

191

12) पिंपरी गवळी

190

189

186

185

14 20

146

149

148

147

06 90

152

00 143

80 S

141

orig

anginis as he

137

68 ES

07 A

116

00 .

77.

76- 32

69 10

53 TA

00 गेट नंबर 70 और 454 के बीच रास

रास्ता

41 CO

450

3) लेई छञपती

154

113

47 33

153

152

2324G1/07-8 [PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA29, 1929

3170

155 3) तई छञपती ( निरंतर... )

162

149

163

164

गट नंबर 99 और 164 के बीच में नदी

गट नंबर 78 और 79 के बीच का रास्ता

गट नंवर 37 और 38 के बीच का रास्ता

गट नंबर 39 और 42 के बीच का नाला

गट नंबर 42 और 44 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

गाव सीमा के पास की नदी

4) अपधूप

गट नंबर 70 और 71 के बीच का रास्ता

113

114

115

116

13 311

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

117

4) अपधूप (निरंतर... )

118

119

157

158

159

160

161

गट नंबर 161 और 162 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

00.

162

164

100

165

00 34

गट नंबर 164 और 165 के बीच का रास्ता

166

00280

170

171

173 號

: 00

174

177

179

185

195

194

190

495

5) पवळे खुर्द

485

488

473

465

462

461

460

459

458

453

451

449

448

447

446

443

गट नंबर 443 और 442 क बांच का गाडी

रास्ता

442

35.

3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

438

5) पवळे खुर्द ( निरंतर... )

437

429

436

434

432

435

422

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

गट नंबर 421 में गाडी रास्ता

421

383

गट नंबर 383 में नाला

382

381

380

378

377

गट नंबर 377 और 374 के बीच का रास्ता

374

373

371

368

367

364

203

00 14

गट नंबर 203 और 199 के बीच गाडी

रास्ता

199

198

183

00 ::

182

00 01

गट नंबर 18 में नाला

00 03

77 [ भाग II- खण्ड ३ ( ii ) ]

भारत का संजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

50 5) पवळे खुर्द ( निरंतर... )

3173 3

गट नंबर 55 और 425 के बीच रास्ता

424

425 00

गट नंबर 424 और 56 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

गट नंबर 57 और 58 के बीच का रास्ता

525 6) पळवे बुटुक

524

128 7) जातेगांव

151

150

149

148

147

145

146

143

156

157 02

गट नंबर 157 और 141 के बीच का रास्ता

141

142

159

206

207

205

204

193

198

197 00

91.

गट नंबर 197 और 256 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

256

273

274 01

गट नंबर 274 में नाला

275 00

52 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3174

276 7) जातेगांव ( निरंतर... )

277

284

गट नंबर 277 और 287 के बीच नाला

287

285

286

289

498 8) नारायण गव्हाण

502

504

503

506

497

512

495

494

516

493

483

गट नंबर 424 में गाडी रास्ता

424

481

461

479

478

462

गट नंबर 464 और 484 के बीच का नाला

464

463

452

451

450

449

448

447

609 9)पिंगळनेर

587

586

गट नंबर 586 और 588 के बीच का नाলা

588

585

364

589

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

04 3175

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/ वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

362

9) पिंपळनेर (निरंतर... )

361

480

गट नंबर 350 और 361 के बीच का मांडी

रास्ता

351

468

352

365

353

350

356

355

354

गट नंबर 365 और 459 के बीच का गांडी

रास्ता

469

470

325

459

473

गट नंबर 455 और 471 के बीच का गाडी

रास्ता

471

475

455

541

476

575

472

479

483

554

482

481

478

480

485

382

456

324

486

474

545

542

543

20 3176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

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

गट नंबर 488 और 542 के बीच का गाडी

8) पिंपळनेर (निरंतर... )

रास्ता 02

गाव सीमा के पास का राज्यमार्ग-50

477

544

573

574

547

487

553 10) राळेगण थेरपळ

188 07

गट नंबर 188 में गाडी रास्ता

गट नंबर 188 में कॅनाल

189

298:

297

296

295

244

247

248

249

250

251

263 00

गट नंबर 263 और 162 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

162 00

गट नंबर 317 और 162 के बीच का नाला

317

319

321

322

323 00

गट नंबर 323 और 62 के बीच का रास्ता

62 00

गट नंबर 62 और 16 के बीच का रास्ता

16 00

गट नंबर 16 में कॅनाल

17 00

गट नंबर 16 और 17 में गाडी रास्ता

21 00

31 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007 /वैशाख 29 , 1929

20 10) राळेगण थेरपळ ( निरंतर... )

3177 4

गट नंबर 20 और 448 के बीच की नदी

448

449

119

450

438

458

437

गट नंबर 434 और 436 के बीच का

नाला

436

433

434

435

415

430

416

417

418

419

421

420 11) कोहकडी

00.

गाव सीमा के पास का गाडी रास्ता

355

358

354

351

350

349.

348

396

330

329

331

328 00

गट नंबर 328 और 324 के बीच नाला

324

321

319

318

315

314.

313

304 2324 G1/07-9

38 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3 1

303

00 11 ) कोहकडी ( निरंतर... )

302

301

300

299

198

199

गट नंबर 199 और 200 के बीच का

रास्ता

गट नंबर 199 और 200 के बीच का

कॅनाल

200

197

गट नंबर 197 में कॅनाल

196

189

184

188

गट नंबर 188 में कॅनाल

166

165

164

163

167

गड नंबर 167 में नाला

168

गाव सीमा के पास की नदी

00 12) हकीगतपुर

गट नंबर 66 में कॅनाल

गट नंबर 74 और 266 के बीच का रास्ता

266

गट नंबर 265 और 266 के बीच का

नाला

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

09 [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

265 12) हकीगतपुर ( निरंतर... )

273

271

272

270

3179 4

[फा. सं. एल-14014/7/2007- जी. पी. ] एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th May, 2007

S. O. 1443. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance Industries Limited to the various consumers of Ahmednagar District in the State of Maharashtra, a pipeline should be laid by M /s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of the 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 the notification as published in the Gazette of India under subsection ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri L. R. Gotarne, Competent Authority , Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, Vishal Arcade, 2nd floor , Chinchwad Station Road , Chinchwadgaon, Pune -411033 , Maharashtra State.

Schedule

Mandal /Thesil/Taluk: Jamkhed

District: Ahmednagar

Village

Survey No./Sub-division No.

2 1) Jawale

526

527

528

529

530 2) Potewadi

State: Maharashtra Area to be acquired for ROU Hectare

Are

C-Are

5 00

03 00

16 00

68 00

85 00

98 00

CartTrack at Village Boundary

135

136

137

118

138

140

147 00

77 00

84 00

65 00

40 00

70 00

15 00

22 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA29 , 1929

3180

146

2) Patewadi comedy

145

Road betweent Gat No. 144 &145

144

153

155

156

157

168

169

170

167

171

172

171

3) Nannaj

172

461

462

471

467

470

659

660

662

657

656

653

665

649

666

667

811

812

813

Road betweent Gat No. 807 & 819

807

819

820

806

856

857

Nala between Gat No. 857 & 887

887

886

864

972

974

973

975 3181

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007 /वैशाख 29, 1929

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Cart Track beetween Gat No. 975 &

3) Nannaj (Contd....)

982

983

966

1057

1059

1060

1061

1056

1055

Nala beetween Gat No. 1054 & 1066

1054

1066

CartTrackbeetween Gat No. 1054 &

1066

1065

1075

1076

1079

1078

1080

1081

1083

1084

130

4) Rajewadi

131

133

135

129

172

186

185

184

183

182

201

5)Bavi

299

298

296

297

303

304

Nala in Gat No. 286

286

285

284

283 3182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

282 5) Bavi (Contd ....)

281

279

278

Nala in Gat No.279

276

274

273

272

271 271

270

269

265

264

263

247

248

249

218

194

Road between Gat No. 195 & 200

195

196

352 6) Fakrabad

353

344

343

342

341

340

253

256

257

259

Road between Gat No. 260 & 265

260

265

Nala in Gat No. 223

223

Nala in Gat No. 78

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

5 00

13 00

35 00

11 00

97 00

85 00

05 00

38 00 00 00

08 11 08

63 00

47 00

86 00

51 00

82 00

23 00

21 00

94 00

92 00

43 01

08 00

01 00

34 00

89 00

41 00

34 00

01 00

32 00

33 00

54 00

88 00

73 00

50 00

69 00

90 00

60 00

03 01

96 00

11 01

04 00

61 00

29 00

10 00

03 00

23 00

13 00

97 00

32 00

97 00

26 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

3183 1

13 6) Fobrabad (contd

117

116

River at Village Boundary

58 7) Vanjarwadi

River at Village Boundary

Road between Gat No. 32 & 41

Drain in Gat No. 41

60 8) Khamgaon

CartTrack at Village Boundary

CartTrack beetween Gat No. 34 &

CartTrack beetween Gat No. 32 &

747

21 9)Arangaon

746

Nala in Gat No. 742

745

742

741

737

736

738

State Highway 53 between 734 & 738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

31814

2 1

734 9)Arangaon (Contd .... )

733

676

692

693

694

719

718

717

716

715

714

229 10) Dongaon

230

231

232

233

234

238

237

239

241

Cart Track between Gat No. 239 &

179

180

179

178

175

Cart Track between Gat No. 175 &

316

314

313

312

311

Nala between Gat No.311 & 317

317

309

307

306

302

Cart Track between Gat No. 306 &

302

301

299

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

5 3

46 00

76 00

75 00

72 00

30 00

70 00

65 00

03 00

39 00

18 00

14 00

22 00

16 00

09 00

18 00

23 00

01 00

38 00

19 00

30 00

34 00

49 00

48 00

89 00

50 00

21 00

66 3185

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 314, 1929

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

297 10) Dongaon (Contd .... )

296

295

293

292

288

287

286

281

280

275

384

385

Nala in Gat No. 386

386

District: Ahmednagar Mandal /Thesil/Taluk : Ahmednagar

River at Village Boundary 1)Watephal

233

223

221

220

219

218

217

53 2) Sakat- Khurd

Road between Gat No. 55 & 56

State Highway-141 between Gat No.

56& 156

183

Road between Gat No. 183 & 70

137

136

134

123

122

121

109 2324G1/07-10

5 3

95 00

65 00

90 00

27 00

65 00

67 00

51 00

81 00

State: Maharashtra

08 01

66 00

17 00

58 00

34 00

06 00

45 00

01 00

25 00

05 00

46 00

51 00

07 00

05 00

92 00

71 00

57 00

77 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19. 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

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

Road in Gat No. 109

2) Sakat. Khurd (Contd ...)

108

160

106

105

Cart Track between Gat No. 105 &

106

103

102

101

Cart Track in Gat No. 100

100

474

3) Walki

'97

473

475

Road between Gat No. 475 & 480

480

497

496

495

503

504

509

507

508

Road between Gat No. 506 & 544

544

545

547

548

554

555

CartTrack between Gat No. 555 &

561

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 561 &

587

637

636

635

634

59 [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

633 3) Walki ( Contd ... )

632

631

630

629

328

327

326

625

624

623

Road between Gat No. 623 & 845

845

1332

842

843

844

839

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

Nala between Gat No. 907 & 986

986

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 986 &

670

992

1331

965

951

879

962

Road between Gat No.962 & 956

956

961

960

959

958

3187 3

5 00

90 00

87 00

06. 00

76 00

79 00

31 00

60 00

91 00

03 00

71 00

42 00

24 00

91 00

45 00

22 00

17 00

07 00

63 00

33 00

52 00

03 00

37 00

59 00

04 00

95 00

32 00

84 00

14 00

96 00

78 00

51 00

93 00

52 00

27 00

80 00

10 00

37 00

49 00

01 00

36 00

51 00

10 [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3188

957

3) Walki (Contd... )

Nala between Gat No. 957 & 956

Nala in Gat No. 956

Road between Gat No. 956 & 780

780

778

1027

1028

777

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 777 &

1025

1029

1030

Road between Gat No. 1030 & 1038

1038

1037

1036

162

4) Baburdi Bend

160

161

Nala between Gat No. 161 & 160

159

158

157

149

146

147

148

145

125

139

141

134

137

136

129

State Highway -10 between Gat

No.139 &129

Nala between Gat No. 129 & 76

Nala in Gat No. 58

53 3189

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4) Baburdi Bend ( Contd ... )

Nala in Gat No. 69

5) Khadki

134

6) Sarola Kasar

135

136

137

138

Road between Gat No. 138 & 142

142

143

Nala in Gat No. 143

171

172

169

174

179

180

182

183

184

185

187

186

850

Nala between Gat No. 850 & 8

Road in Gat No. 7

Road between Gat No. 3 & 770

770

767

769

775

776

747

858

786

787

75 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29. 1929

319c

788 6) Sarola Kasar ( Contd ...)

779

Road between Gat No. 779 & 693

693

691

692

689

702

703

Cart Track between Gat No. 703 &

669

704

668

667

666 Mandal /Thesil/Taluka : Parner

District: Ahmednagar

602 1) Ashtagaon

628

Nala beetween Gat No. 605 & 602

622

644

643

642

647

629

336

628

639

640

641

335

605

648

334

337

649

Cart Track beetween Gat No. 649 &

656

604

656

319

658

328

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

5 00

30 00

33 00

74 00

11 00

88 00

19 00

42 00

89 00

75 00

79 00

08 00

45 State : Maharashtra 00

81 00

31 00

25 00

82 00

96 00

47 00

72 00

49 00

63 00

11 00

14 00

40 00

89 00

73 00

88 01

22 00

56 00

83 00

30 00

50 00

15 31

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007 /वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

327

1) Ashtgaon ( Contd ... )

323

326

325

311

309

313

603

Nala between Gat No. 658 & 535

303

492

680

302

Road in Gat No. 535

535

191

2) Pimprigawali

190

189

186

185

146

149

148

147

152

151

143

140

141

138

137

116

Road between Gat No. 70 & 454/1

454

450

154

47 3) Rui Chatrapati

153

152

00 3192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

155 3) Rui Chatrapati ( Contd ... )

162

149

163

164

River between Gat No. 99 & 164

Road between Gat No. 78 & 79

Road between Gat No. 37 & 38

Nala between Gat No. 39 & 42

Cart Track between Gat No. 42 & 44

River at Village Boundary

4) Apdhup

Riverat Village Boundary

Road between Gat No. 70 & 71

113

114

115

116

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

5 00

48 00

16 00

56 00

35 00

51 00

89 00

09 00

41 00

45 00

48 00

07 00

17 00

44 00

00 00

34 00

40 00

49 01

12 00

23 00

54 00

16 00

25 00

79 00

42 00

17 00

62 00

52 00

72 00

04 00

85 00

25 3193

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

117

4) Apdhup (Contd .... )

118

119

157

158

159

160

161

CartTrackbeeetween Gat No. 161 &

162

164

165

Road beetween Gat No. 165 & 164

166

170

171

173

174

177

179

185

195

194

190

495

5) Palwe Khurd

486

485

96.

488

473

465

462

461

460

459

458

453

451

449

448

447

446

443

CartTrackbetween Gat No 442 &

443

442

2324 GI /07-11 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29. 1929

2 5) Palwe Khurd ( Contd ... )

438

437

429

436

434

432

435

422

Cart Track in Gat No. 421

421

383

Nala in Gat No. 383

382

381

380

378

377

Road between Gat No. 377 & 374

374

373

371

368

367

364

203

Cart Trackbetween Gat No. 203 &

199

198

183

182

Nala in Gat No.18

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

5 00

43 00

71 00

84 00

98 00

70 00

71 00

13 00

65 00

81 00

30 01

58 00

79 00

52 00

86 00

79 00

30 00

18 00

02 00

06 00

41 00

19 00

05 00

08 00

03 00

66 00

61 00

15 00

85 00

45 00

35 00

02 00

38 00

49 00

06 00

11 00

07 00

66 00

25 00

70 00

44 00

54 00

31 00

09 00

77 [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29. 1929

50 5) Palwe Khurd ( Contd ... )

Road between Gat No. 55 & 425

424

425

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 424 &

Road between Gat No. 57 & 58

58 6) Palwe Budruk

525

524 7) Jategaon

128

151

150

149

148

147

145

146

143

156

157

Road between Gat No. 157 & 141

141

142

159

206

207

205

204

193

198

197

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 197 &

256

3195 3

5 00

04 00

09 00

94 00

71 00

47 00

75 00

30 00

02 00

40 00

41 00

42 00

28 00

21 00

73 00

60 00

34 00

72 00

03 00

35 00

76 00

95 00

88 00

09 00

06 00

38 00

11 00

15 00

02 00

27 00

35 00

68 00

19 00

17 00

11 00

59 00

91 00

77 00

79 00

99 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3196

2 1

256 7) Jategaon (Contd ... )

273

274

Nala in Gat No. 274

275

276

277

284

Nala between Gat No. 277 & 287

287

285

286

289

498 8) Narayan Gawan

502

504

503

506

497

512

495

494

516

493

483

CartTrack in Gat No. 424

424

481

461

479

478

462

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

67 00

69 00

Nala between Gat No. 464 & 484

464

463

452

451

450

449

448

447

609 9) Pimpalner

587

586

25 00

84 00

40 00

07 00

98 00

72 00

Nala between Gat No. 586 & 588

588

92 00

80 3197

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007 /वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

585

9) Pimpalner (Contd ... )

364

589

362

361

460

Cart Trackbetween Gat No. 350 &

361

351

468

352

365

353

350

356

355

354

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 365 &

459

469

470

325

459

473

Cart Track between Gat No. 455 &

471

475

455

541

476

575

472

479

483

554

482

481

478

480

485

382

456

324

486

474 3198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

545 9) Pimpalner ( Contd ... )

542

543

CartTrack between Gat No. 488 &

542

State Highway -50 between Village

Boundary

477

544

573

574

547

487

553 10) Ralegaon Therpal

188

CartTrack in Gat No. 188

Canal in Gat No. 188

189

298

297

296

295

244

247

248

249

250

251.

263

CartTrackbetween Gat No. 263 &

162

Nala between Gat No. 317 & 162

317

319

321

322

323

Road between Gat No. 323 & 62

Road between Gat No. 62 & 16

Canal in Gat No. 16

CartTrack between Gat No. 16 & 17

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

5 00

63 00

36 00

49 00

34 00

42 00

55 00

78 00

23 00

44 00

18 00

53 00

63 00

64 00

60 00

31 00

95 00

81 00

27 00

75 00

24 00

42 00

76 00

81 00

13 00

37 00

49 00

78 00

36 00

13 00

69 00

88 00

72 00

70 00

62 00

11 00

03 00

22 00

61 00

60 00

80 00

68 00

44 00

70 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

21 10) Ralegaon Therpal ( Contd ... )

River between Gat No. 20 & 448

448

449

119

450

438

458

437

Nala between Gat No. 434 & 436

436

433

434

435

415

430

416

417

418

419

421

420 11) Kohkadi

CartTrackbetween Village Boundary

355

358

354

351

350

349

348

396

330

329

331

328

Nala between Gat No. 328 &324

324

321

319

318

315

314

313

304

303

302

301

300 R.GT.I.L. Formerly RGPL

3199 3

5 00

31 00

51 00

27 00

11.

43 00

71 00

41 00

99 00

02 00

39 00

00 00

89 00

53 00

19 00

42 00

82 00

60 00

59 00

89 00

85 00

58 00

84 00

15 00

94 00

41 00

98 00

03 00

11 00

87 00

79 00

84 00

63 00

78 00

35 00

20 00

45 00

48 00

44 00

80 00

23 00

45 00

46 00

18 00

08 06 06

99 00

38 00

97 00

51 00

21 00

48 [PART 11 -SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA29, 1929

3200

299

11) Kohakadi (Contd .... )

198

199

Road Between Gat No. 199 & 200

Canal between Gat No. 199 & 200

200

197

Canal in Gat No. 197

196

189

184

188

Canal in Gat No. 188

166

165

164

163

167

Nala in Gat No. 167

168

River at Village Boundary

12) Hakigatpur

Canal in Gat No. 66

Road between Gat No. 74 & 266

266

51 09

Näla between Gat No. 266 & 265

265

273

271

272

270

[F. No. L- 14014/7/2007-G.P . ]

S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy .

3201

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल , 2007

sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2. "Whether the action of the Asstt. Supdt . of Post Office, Central Sub Division, Deptt . of Post Government of India, Akola ( M.S. ) in terminating the services of the workman Shri Vasant S/o Pandurang Diwnale , Ex GDSMD w.e.f. 30-06-2003 is just & legal ?"

का.आ. 1444-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/237/ 2003- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007

3. The reference came for hearing today on 24-1-2007. The perusal of record indicates that right from the date of issuing notices to him the petitioner is not attending the Tribunal . He has not filed affidavit though the case is fixed for filing his affidavit and adducing an Evidence right from the month of June 2005. In such circumstances it seems that the petitioner is not interested incontinuing the case . The claim is dismissed for his default of not adducing the evidence . In the result the petition stands as dismissed for default .

Hence this award .

Dated:24-1-2007

A.N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2007

S.O. 1444 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-4-2007 .

[No. L-40012/237 /2003 - IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 1445-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT -CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR.

[सं. एल -40012/42/2003- आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

Date: 24-01-2007

Case No. CGIT/NGP /50/2004

New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007 : Shri Vasant S/ o Pandurang

Petitioner PartyNo. 1 Diwnale R/o Danpura (Majlapur ) , Tehsil Akola,

Dist. Akola (M.S. ) Versus

Respondent : The Assistant Supdt . of Post

Offices,, (Central) PartyNo. 2

S.O. 1445 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.137/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-4-2007 .

[No. L-40012/42/2003 - IR(DU) ] Deptt. of Post, Akola Head Office , NearBus Stand, Akola Dist . Akola [M.S. ] AWARD

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Dated:24th January 2007

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

Date: 24-01-2007.

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 137/2003

Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Gulabrao Arekar,

PartyNo. 1 R/o Ramdas Sahara, Wd. No. 99, Juni Sukrawari , Telipura, Nagpur (M.S. ) 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Vasant Pandurang Diwnale, R/o Danpura (Majlapur ) , Tehsil Akola, Dist. Akola (M.S. ) Party No.1 and The Assistant Supdt. of Post Offices (Central) Deptt . of Post, Akola Head Office , Near Bus Stand, AkolaDist . Akola (M.S. ) Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-40012/ 237/ 2003 - IR ( DU ) Dt . 1-6-2004 under clause (d) of

2324 G1 /07--12 3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

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

New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007 Respondent : The Superintendent of Post

Party No.2 Amravati District, Amravati ( M.S. )

AWARD

Dated: 24th January, 2007

S.O. 1446 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.47/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on23-4-2007 .

[No. L -40012/66/ 91 - IR (DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Sanjay Gulabrao Arekar , R/ o Ramdas Sahara, Wd . No. 99 , Juni Sukrawari , Telipura , Nagpur ( M.S. ) Party No.1 and Superintendent of Post Amravati District, Amravati Party No.2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L -40002 /42/2003 - IR (DU ) Dt . 29-5-2003 under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

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

Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 47/ 2002

Date: 13-04-2007.

Petitioner : Shri Narayan Jambekar

PartyNo. 1 B.P.M./Mandva via Dharni , Amravati . Versus

Respondent : The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices ,

PartyNo.2

2."Whether the action of the Management of Posts through its Supdt . of Posts , Amravati , Dist . Amravati in dismissing Sh . Sanjay S/ o Gulabrao Arekar , ED BPM from service we.f. 21-5-1993 and subsequently not re - instating the said workman on an acquittal by the criminal trial court/ JMFC /Dhamangaon in criminal case filed by the Management is legal , proper and Justified? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled to ?"

Amravati Division , Amravati Camp . AWARD Dated : 13th April 2007

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Narayan Jambekar , B.P.M./Mandva via Dharni , Amravati Party No.1 and The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Amravati Division , Amravati Camp , Party No.2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L- 40012/ 66/91 - IR (DU ) Dt . 24-25-5-1995 under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) with the following schedule.

3. The reference came for hearing today on 24-01-2007 . The perusal of record indicates that the petitioner is not attending the court from the month of September 2006 and not adducing any evidence to support his claim . He has not filed any affidavit though the case is fixed for filing it. There are no reasons at all to continue the case and wait for adducing the Evidence of the petitioner for such a long period . Today also he was absent though it was fixed for adducing the evidence i.e. for active hearing . In such circumstances the reference will have to be dismissed for his default . Hence it is order that the petition i.e. reference stands for dismissed for the default of the petitioner

Hence this award .

Dated: 24-1-2007

A.N. YADAV , Presiding Officer

2. "Whether the action of the Management of Sr. Supdt . of Post Office , Amravati in terminating the services of Shri N. K. Jambekar , and acceptance of resignation of regular workman , Shri S. H. Ingole , after delay of nearly 2 years , without acting as per procedures is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?" नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1446-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/66/91- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

3. The claim came up to hearing on 7-8-2006 before the Tribunal . Nobody had appeared on behalf of the workman. The counsel for the Respondent is present . The petitioner as well as his counsels are not attending the case right from the year 2003. The petitioner had filed an Affidavitbefore C.G.I.T. Jabalpur and he was expected to offer himself for cross - examination . Right from 12-6-1996 the petitioner is not attending the court and he could not be cross -examined on behalf of the management , therefore, the affidavit cannot be considered and there are no reasons ` for continuing the dispute on the stage of cross- examination of the petitioner for this considerable long time.After transfer of this case from Jabalpur a notice was 3203 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

issued to him, but the petitioner did not turn and offered for cross - examination. Hence the dispute is disposed off for default of the petitioner, its stands as dismissed for default.

for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-40012/66/94- IR (DU) Dt . 05/07/1995 under clause(d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial dispute act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

Hence this award .

Dated: 13-04-2007 A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2007

2. "Whether the action of the Management of Sr. Supdt. of Post Office , Amravati in terminating the services of Shri N. K. Jambekar Extra Departmental Branch PostMaster is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

का.आ. 1447.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-04-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/66/94- आई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

3. The claim came up to hearing on 07-08-2006 before the Tribunal . Nobody had appeared on behalf of the workman. The counsel for the Respondent is present . The petitioner as well as his counsels are not attending the case right from the year 2003. If the case was fixed for evidence on 10-03-2003 of the workman since that time nobody appeared and adduced any evidence to prove his case. In such circumstances only inference can be drawn that the petitioner is not at all interested in prosecuting the case. There are 2 cases in respect of the same cause of action. And in both cases despite of the notice after transfer from Jabalpur to this court the petitioner is not attending it . Ido not find any reason to continue the claim on the same stage for more than 4 years . Hence it is dismissed for the default of the petitioner and no dispute award is sent to the Ministry.

Hence this no dispute award .

Dated: 13-04-2007

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer New Delhi , the 23rd April, 2007 S.O. 1447. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the. Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Post and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-04-2007 .

नई दिल्ली , 23 अप्रैल , 2007

[No. L-40012/ 66/94- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 52/2002

Date: 13/04/2007

का.आ. 1448.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डायरेक्टर, रिसर्च सेंटर , हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84 से 107 तक/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Petitioner/ : SHRINARAYAN JAMBEKAR,

Ex . Branch Post

PartyNo. 1

Master, Mandla via Dharni , Dist. Amravati ( M.S. )

[सं. एल -14025/ 1 /2007- आई आर (डी. यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007 Versus

Respondent/ : The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices ,

Party No. 2 Amravati Division , Amravati ( M.S.)

AWARD (Dated: 13th April 2007 )

S.O. 1448. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LCID 84 to 107/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Hydrabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Director , Research Centre , Hyderabad and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 23-4-2007 .

[No. L- 14025/1 /2007 - IR (DU) } SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Narayan Jambekar, Ex. Branch Post Master , Mandla via Dharni , Amravati Party No.1 and The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Amravati Division , Amravati Party No. 2 referred the same 3204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

Shri . T. Ramachandra Reddy, PresidingOfficer

Dated the 12th April , 2007

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO . 107/2006 BETWEEN:

LCID No. 84/2006 1. Varghese mathew S/ o K.M. Mathai , R/o 5-35, $ aivihar Colony, Plot No. 1, Meerpet , R.R. Dist , Hyderabad

LCID No. 85/2006 2. A.K.P. Nair S/ o Krishnan Nair , R/05-28 , R/ o Pahadi Shariff, Saroornagar Mandal, Hyderabad

LCID NO . 86/2006 3. Sibu Mandal S/o Jeban Mandal , R/o 1-96, Pahadisharif, Saroornagar Mandal , Hyderabad

LCID No. 87/2006 4. V.A. Mathai S/o Abraham , R/o4-40, do-

5. P. Yadi S/ Papalal , R/ o6-94. -do-

LCID No. 88/2006

LCID No. 89/2006 6. B.S. Patal S/o Shiva Sharananppa , R/o 5-27, -do--

LCID No. 90/2006 7. Md. Yaseen Ali S/o Yousef Ali R/o. 6-94/ 1-do

8. M. Vijay Kumar S/o Madhavan , R/o6-94, do

LCID NO . 91/2006

LCID No. 92/2006 9. K. Papi Reddy , S/ o Chandra Reddy R/o6-100-do

LCID No. 93/2006 10. K. Suresh, S/o Balraj , R/o 3-71 , do-

LCID No. 94/2006 11. S.P. Yadalah , S/ o Lingaiah , R/o 4-54/2 , Kongarai Ravila, via RagannaGuda ' X' Road Maheswar (M) R.R. Dist - 501510

LCID No. 95/2006 12. S. Sarvan Kumar S/o Veeresham, R/o3-10, do

13. P. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o Buchi Reddy, R/ o 3-55, -do-

LCID No. 96/2006

LCID No. 97/2006 14. P. Ramulu S/ o P. Jangiah , R/ o 1-96 Pahadisharif Saroornagar (M) , Hyderabad

15. P. Srinivas Yadav S/ o Jangaiah, R/o2-6--do-

LCID No. 98/2006

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) )

LCID No. 99/2006 16. P. Ramulu Goud S/o P. Venkatesh , R/ o 2-111 , PO : Kongarai Ravela, via Raganna Guda ' X ' Road, Maheshwar (M) R.R. Dist - 501510

LCID No. 100/2006 17. P. Chennappa S/ o P. Krishtayya, R/o 1-28 ,-do-

LCID No. 101/2006 18. Md. Javeed S/o Md. Basu Miya, R/o 18-12-418 /D/30/A/ 1 Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad

LCID No. 102/2006 19. P. Ramesh , S/ o Veera Swamy R/o 1-96/1 , Pahadisharif, Saroornagar (M) Hyderabad

20. K. Balaraj S/o K.Papa Rao ,

LCID No. 103/2006 R/o3-71 , -do-

LCID No. 104/2006 21. A. Yadagiri S/o Balaiah , R/ o- 3-22PO: Kongarai Ravela, Via Raganna Guda 'X ' Road Maheswar (M) , R.R. Dist - 501510

LCID No. 105/2006 22. N.S.S. Reddy (N. Shamsunder Reddy) S/o Ragupathi Reddy, R/o4-132,-do-

LCID No.06/2006 23. V.Annamma S/o Vargheese, R/o 1-95 , Pahadishrif, Sarrornagar (M), Hyderabad

LCID No. 107/2006 24. P.Suresh S/o Jangaiah , R/o6-107, -do

.......Petitioners AND

1. The Secretary, Union of India , Ministry of Defence , New Delhi - 11

2. The Director, Research Centre , Immarat P.O.:Vignankancha, Hyderabad -69

3. The Chief Engineer (1 ) (R&D) Picket, Secunderabad - 03

4. Mis Garrison Engineer ( I) (R&D), MES R.C.I , P.O.:Keshavagiri , ChandrayanaGutta, Hyderabad-05.

5. M/ s Maruthi International , D.No.7-2-1087/9 /E Flact No. 103 , S.S.Residence , B.K.Guda, Sanathnagar , Hyderabad-500018 .

6. M/ s Indu Electricals Engineers & Contractor , H.No.17-1-391/S/407, Singareni Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500059 .

.....Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

: Sri V.NarasimhaGoud, Advocate

For the Respondent

: K. Surayanarayana, Advocate [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

COMMON AWARD

These cases were taken on file in view of Judgement of theHon'ble High Court of A. P. reported in 1997(3 ) LLJ.

2. The claim petitions are clubbed at the request of the counsels for both the parties, in LCID . - 84/2006 on the ground that the questions involved in all these cases is one and same and the documents filed by the respondent are also common and respondents in all the cases are one and the same . The claim of the petitioners in all the cases is similar in nature and their claim is that they worked as Switchboard Operators, Electricians and Helpers in the electrical sub - stations of the respondents.

3. The material allegations in the petitions are that they joined the services of the second respondent in the year 1988 which is research oriented organization . The second respondent requires uninterrupted supply of power . As such , 25 electrical sub - sections were established to regulate and supply the power for operational work as well as to the residential localities of second respondent. The said 25 electrical sub- stations are being headed by the respondent No. 3 and the petitioners were engaged in the maintenance and operations of the above sub - stations and the duties of the Switchboard Operators are permanent in nature. Since the supply of electricity is indispensable to the second respondent, the sub- stations are integral part of the second respondent establishment . It is, further , submitted that treating the applicants, as contract labour is bad in law, contrary to the Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation Act . Therefore , the applicants and its union represented to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad for their absorption as they are discharging the work which is permanent in nature and such works were prohibited under Section 10 of Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation Act. The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) after studying the nature of work being carried by the applicants and other areas , submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour on 25-7-2002 stating that the work carried by the applicant is perennial and perennial in nature .

4. It is, further, submitted that Central AdvisoryBoard of Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation Act recommended for prohibiting engagement of employees on contract basis in respect of maintenance and handling ofthe said electrical sub -stations . As such, the Government ofIndia issued Gazette notification No. 47 dated 18-1-2006 prohibiting the engagements of contract labour in the jobs of sweeping and cleaning in the second respondent organization and also prohibited the work of operation and maintenance of electrical sub - stations in the establishment of respondent No. 3 located in second respondent premises . It is , further , submitted that the applicants union also submitted a letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) to direct the respondents No. 2 & 4 to absorb the applications who are working in the maintenance and handling of the sub- stations on permanent basis . The 4th

3205

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

respondent issued a letter to put an end to the contract with respondent No. 5 to avoid statutory benefits to the applicants which amounts to unfair labour practices and the oral termination of the application is in violation of Section 25 F and25 N of ID Act .

5. It is, further, submitted that the contract alleged to havebeenmade by the respondent is sham and bogus and created for the purpose of depriving the permanent absorption of the applicants . It is, further , submitted that theapplicants came to know that there are different names ofcontractors through out their period of service . But the applicants have been in service from their initial date of joining till their Service were terminated. It is, further , submitted that neither the said alleged contractors nor the respondents obtained any license under Contract Labour Abolition and RegulationAct.

6. It is, further , submitted that some of the employees wereworking as sweepers and in the job of cleaning and whose services were terminated after the notification, 85 contract workers were taken into service through a settlement under Section 12(3 ) of ID Act. But the same benefit was not extended to the applicants who worked in 25 electrical sub-stations . It is , further , submitted that the applicants remained unemployed after their termination and sought relief for their re - instatement into service with all consequential benefits including back wages .

7. The respondent filed the counter affidavit of Pramod Kumar , M/ s Garrison Engineer in the office of respondent No. 4 on behalf of all the respondents and denied the averments made by the petitioners . The Research Centre, Immarate which is second respondent is Research and Development Laboratory established in the 1988 to develop the Missile system indigenously to meet the requirements of all the three services of the country . The military engineering service represented by Garrison Engineer who is respondent No. 4 is responsible to provide electric power, water , construction and maintenance of roads and buildings etc. to the second respondent . The administration and management of respondents are entirely independent. It is submitted that the petitioners/applicants were never recruited/ appointed by anyone of the respondents and they were engaged by the various contractors from time to time who had been awarded contracts for maintenance and manning the electrical sub- stations . The said contracts were foreclosed on 15-2-2006 in view ofGazette notification dated 18-1-2006 issuedby Government of India. It is, further , submitted that the services of the applicants were never terminated since they were not recruited or appointed by the respondents and further , the applicants are not employees of the respondents . The petitioners approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP No.14272 of 2006 and the same was dismissed . They also approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and their applications were dismissed.

3206

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , .1929

8. It is further , submitted that the 3rd and 4th respondents are responsible for providing maintenance service to respondent No. 2 and the contracts were concluded for manning , operation and maintenance including repairs to the sub - stations by respondent No. 4. The contractors had engaged various labours to carry out the work as per the terms of the contract . It is, further , submitted that some of the permanent employees of the respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 4 who are being utilized for similar nature of work for DRDL and some of the labours are now being utilized due to foreclosing of contracts in view of the prohibition under the Gazette notification . The petitioners were the discharged contract labour, are not entitled for regularisation or re - instatement .

9. It is, further , submitted that the petitioners on one hand admitted that they were contract labour and on the otherhand, pleaded that they have joined the service under respondent which contradictory to each other . In fact, the petitioners are not employed directly by the principal employer and they worked under various contractors and they cannot be absorbed in the respondent department and the employees would be recruited by the respondent by conducting various tests with requisite qualifications , experience and training . In case of the contract labour , only educational qualifications , experience is being verified and the total responsibility of the works lies on contractor to carry out the work . It is , further , submitted that the works carried out by the contractor cannot be treated as perennial innature . The petitioners might have worked with various contractors for different nature of maintenance and repair works and also submitted that the alleged continuous work in the contractor's establishment are not known to the respondent.

12. The petitioners filed the affidavit of Varghese Mathew, Switch board Operator petitioner in LC . 84/2006 and Mr. Md. Javid Petitioner in 101/2006 employed as an Engineer on behalf of all the petitioner in support of their case andgot marked the documents Ex. WI to W4 . Ex . Wl is the letter dated 25-7-2002 along with the report . Ex .W2 is the letter 21-10-2004, writtenby the Secretary CACLB , asking for comments , enclosing the minutes . Ex . W3 is the Gazette notification dated 18-1-2006 . Ex.W4 is dated 19-4-2006 showing the settlement . As against this evidence, the respondent filed the affidavit of Pramodh Kumar , Executive Engineer in the office of Respondent No.4 and got marked the documents Exs.Ml to M18 . Ex. Ml is the copyof notification dated 18-1-2006. Ex . M2 is the certified copy of contract agreement No.GE ( 1 ) RCI/HYD 39 of 20-05-06 awarded to Mis Indu Electricals , Hyderabad . Ex.M3 is the certified copy of contract agreement No.GE( I ) RCI /HYD 40 of 2005-06 awarded to Mis Maruthi International, Hyderabad . Ex.M4 is the certified copy of contract Agt No.GE( I ) RCI/HYD 57 of 2005-06 awarded to MisMaruthi International , Hyderabad . EX.M5 is the copy ofCTC of Agt . No.CERD/ SEC -06 of 93-94. Ex . M6 is the copy of contractAgt No.GE ( 1 ) RCI/HYD 51 of 2002-03 . Ex . M7 is the copy of contract Agt . No. GE ( I) RCI/HYD 52 of 2002-03 . EX.M8 is the copy of contract Agt . No.GE( 1) RCI/ HYD 69 of 2002-03 . Ex . M9 is the copy of contract Agt. No.GE( I ) RCI/HYD 48 of 2003-04 . Ex . MIO is the copy of contractAgt No.GE( I ) RCI/HYD 49 of 2003-04 . Ex . Mll is the copy of contract Agt No.GE (I) RCI/HYD 66 of 2003-04 . EX.MI2 is the copy of contract Agt . No.GE( I) RCI/HYD 43 of2004-05 . Ex. M13 is the copy of contract Agt . No. GE( I ) RCI/HYD 44 of2004-05 . Ex . M14 is the copy of contract Agt . No. GE( I ) RCI/HYD 62 of 2004-05. Ex . MI5 is the copy of final bill to the contractor in Agt No. GE (E)/RCI/HYD 39 of2005-06 . Ex.MI6 is the copy of final bill to the contractor in Agt . No. GE(E) /RCI/HYD 40 of 2005-06. Ex . M17 is the copy of final bill to the contractor in Agt. No. GE (E) /RCI/ HYD 57 of 2005-06 . Ex . MI8 is the copy of Form- 2 dated 16-2-1974 issued by Asst . Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad.

10. It is, further, submitted that the 4th respondent has been registered by the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) , Hyderabad and the License of registration bearing No. 1/1974 dated 16-2-1974 was issued for awarding the contracts for manning the electrical sub- stations . It is , further , submitted that consequent to abolition of contract labour system in the jobs of sweeping and cleaning . 84 job contract workers have been discontinued and alternate arrangements are under examination . It is, further , submitted that second respondent/ management has requested the existing contract labour engaged in various other field , to consider engaging the discontinued workers in the field work of non-perennial nature of work such as cutting and jungle clearance and cleaning of drainage etc.

11. It is, further , denied that the contracts concluded with the contractors are sham and bogus and created to deprive the rights of the petitioners for absorption in the department . The petitioners who are the workers under the contractor cannot claim the benefits of the Government employment and requested to dismiss the petitions .

13. WWI has sworn that he and the petitioner in 85 to 95/2006 have worked as switch board operators and the petitioners in 96/2006 to 100/2006 have worked as electricians and the petitioners in 102 to 107/2006 worked as helpers in the 29 sub - stations established by respondent . No. 4 in the establishment of respondent No. 2. They worked from 1998 in the electrical sub stations which supplies uninterrupted supply of electricity to the second respondent The 4th respondent has taken the job of supply of electricity to the second respondent . As such , all the sub-stations were run under the direct control of the 4th respondent. The jobs of switch board operators , electricians and helpers are indispensable, perennial in nature. The petitioners are having sufficient qualifications and experience . As such , they were taken on the job by the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent used to depute 3207

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Junior Engineer to supervise the work of the petitioners and the petitioners used to report to him and work as per the his instructions . The petitioners have worked under the direct control of the 4th respondent and there is a relationship of employer and employee . The allegation of the respondent that the petitioners are contract workers worked under various contracts is not true and the alleged contracts are only sham and camouflage .

16. It is suggested to the witness that the petitioners are contract labourers and they were employed by the various contracts in the sub stations . The sub - stations were maintained by the contractors of the 4th respondent as per the terms and conditions of the contract concluded between the 4th respondent and the contractors . In view of the notification prohibiting the contract labour, the contracts were foreclosed . It is admitted by the petitioner thattheyapproached Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter Hon'ble High Court by filing writ Petition and that they were advised to approach this Tribunal . The MWI has reiterated in his affidvit that the pleas taken in his counter affidavit and pleaded that the petitioner are not employed by the respondents and they worked under various contractors and there is no relationship of employer and employce and further , pleaded that the petitioners on one hand, admitted that they were contract labour and on the other hand, they stated that they have joined the service in the respondent department and further, stated that 4th respondent has been registered by the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) with registration No. 1/1974 dated 16-2-1974 to award the contract for running and maintenance of the sub stations to the contractors and the contracts were awarded to the contractors by competitive tendering and the contracts were foreclosed, in view ofthe notification by Government of India prohibiting the contract labour.

17. It is not in dispute that the petitioners approached the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and the same was dismissed on 2-5-2006 holding that it has no jurisdiction and the Industrial Tribunal is a proper firmto decide the matter . It is also not in dispute that the WP filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court was also dismissed observing that the petitioners are at liberty to approach proper forum for redressel of their grievances .

18. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioners are employed directly by the 4th respondent in the electrical sub stations and they are working since long time and the alleged contract system was only camouflage and sham createdby the 4th respondent to deprive the petitioners of their legal rights .

14. It is, further, stated that the petitioners have brought to the notice of the Government of India who in turn directed to Regional Labour Commissioner (C) , Hyderabad to make an enquiry into nature of the jobs carried out by the petitioners in the sub stations and to find out whether their jobs are perennial in nature or temporary .Accordingly, Regional Labour Commissioner (C) submitted his report dated 25-7-2002 informing that all the petitioners are working continuously from 1988 onwards in the sub stations and the nature of their work is perennial and permanent in nature . The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) further , found that the similar jobs performed in some other organizations like DRDL and research organization under the control of the 4th respondent are performed by the regular employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) sent a report to the Ministry of Labour along with his factual report. The report of the Commissioner was placed before the Central Advisory Contract labour Board which recommended to the Government of India to prohibit the engagements of employees on contract basis in the 4th respondent. It is also recommended to prohibiting contract workers in sweeping and cleaning in the establishment of respondent No. 2 as the nature of work is perennial in nature . Basing on the recommendations of the said board, the Government of India has abolished the contract labour system in the operations and electrical sub stations as well as cleaning and sweeping in the respondent organization through a notification dated 18-1-2006 . Thereafter , the peititoners were informed on 14-2-2006 not to come for duty from the next day by the 4th respondent without giving any notice of one month pay in lieu of notice violating the provisions of Section 25 (E) and 25 (N) of ID Act. It is , further stated similarly situated workers who worked earlier as sweeper and cleaner in the second respondent organization as contract workers were taken back on duty giving assurancae that their services will be regularized after sanction of the post by Government of India and this was done as per the settlements under Section 12 (3) of ID Act inbetween respondent No. 2 and the Union . However , the same benefits was not extended to the petitioner .

15. WW2 has stated that he joinded the respondent No. 2 organization in June , 1996 as Engineeer and continuously worked till he was prevented from discharging duties from 15-2-2006 . His affidvit is similar with that of the WW1 .

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners are working continuously from 1988 under the direct control of the second respondent in the sub stations established in the premises of second respondent and the second respondent requires uninterrupted supply of electricity for running their institute and the nature of the work is perennial and permanent and the respondent in order to deprive the petioners crea created sham and bogus contract alleged to have been entered by the respondent No. 4 with the contractors and further , pointed out that the ultimate control of the sub stations is under the second respondent and the petitioners are only shown as a contract labour and the contracts alleged to have been entered with respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 and other contractors by respondent No. 4 are only 3208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29, 1929

created and the petitioners are having sufficient qualification and experience and further , contended that in a similar nature of jobs , the 4th respondent has employed regular departmental staff in DRDA and other research institution

20. On the other hand , the Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that it is the duty of the 4th respondent to maintain and run the electrical sub stations for uninterrupted supply of electricity to the second respondent and that fourth respondent has entered into a contract for running and maintenance of the sub stations by calling the tenders and the petitioners never employed by the respondent and there is no relationship of employee and employer between them and the petitioners are the workers under the contractor concluded by respondent No. 4 and further , pointed out that the case of the petitioner before Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) as well as before the Central Advisory Board that they are the employees of the contractor and further , the petitioners have taken a contradictory pleas in their petition that they are employees of the second respondent and also contract labour which is contradictory to each other and further , pointed out the documents filed by him Ex . M6 to M17 . Tender cum agreement entered between 4th respondent and contractors for running and maintaining the sub stations and also final payment made to the contractors .

21. On perusing the documents Exs . W1 , it is evident that the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C ) , Hyderabad furnished his report with the covering letter dated 25-7-2002 on the working of contract labours in the works of sight Engineer , Supervisor and switch board operators , sub station electricians and helpers etc. in the establishment ofrespondent No. 1 in terms of the provisions of Section 10 ofContract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970. He stated that he interrogated the contract labours working under various contracts on the aforesaid jobs in the establishment of 2nd respondent. He stated that the 4th respondent herein is responsible for providing work services in the second respondent premises including electrical sub stations . He , further stated on his enquiry he found the maintenance and operation of electrical installations are entrusted to the contractors by the M/ s GarrisonEngineering MES (R4 ) . The principal employer with regard to the contract labours , is M/s Garrison Engineering (R4 ) . He also stated that the contract labours working in the establishment have been interrogated individually and the necessary statements were recorded byhim and found that all the contract labours are working in the establishment of second respondent were engaged through the contractor by R4 Garrison Engineer from 1988 onwords .He also gave report that the nature of jobs of the contract workers in the electrical sub stations are perennial innature .

22. Ex . W2 is the minutes of 57th meeting of Central Advisory contract Labour Board discloses item No. 6 ( 1 )

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

"The petitioners are engaged in RCI premises from 1988 since the inception of RCI . Though the contractors have changed, they have remained the same . They are performing thejobs of maintenance of HT Electric supply sub- station as Engineers , Supervisors , Switch Board Operators , electricians , Mazdoors /helpers etc. sweeping, cleaning , dusting , maintenance of hygienes and in environment control ."

He also found that the nature of the work in the electrical sub stations is perennial in nature and recommended for abolition of contract labour system under Section 10 (2 ) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In view of the report of the Central Advisory Board , the Government of India has issued a notification prohibiting the contract labour through its notification Ex . W3 . It is not in dispute that in view of this notification and 4th respondent has foreclosed contracts preventing the petitioner from attending the maintanance work.

23. The petitioner has impleaded the contractors respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 were alleged to have been taken contract in the year 2005. However , respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 6 are set ex parte.

24. Ex . M1 to M4 discloses that respondent No. 4 has concluded the contract by awarding the tenders , containing certain terms and conditions . The contractor has to engage experienced and qualified persons for running and maintenance of the sub stations . The respondent also filed documents regarding payment of contract amount to the contractors .

25. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that since the respondent has taken the plea that the petitioners worked under various contractors as contract labour , the respondent failed to substantiate by producing any record and further , pointed out that in the absence of any record filed by the respondent, it has to be inferred that the petitioners are workers under the respondent No.4. It should be noted that the burden lies on the person at whose instance that dispute is raised . The burden cannot be shifted to the respondents simply because they stated that the petitioners are contract labours under the various contractors. It is the duty of the petitioner to prove that the contract between the respondent and the contractors are sham and camouflage and brought into existence todeprive the right of the petitioner .

26. When the petitioners are claiming that they are appointed by the 4th respondent. They did not choose to file any record. Further , no record is filed that they worked directly under the control of the 4th respondent and further, the payment was made by the 4th respondent . The 4th respondent is an organization and the recruitment is to be done only by written proceedings . There cannot be a oral appointment by the Government departments . It should be noted that the case of the petitioners before the Regional 3209 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

rights of the petitioners . It was observed in the said decision in para 125 at page 1174 in sub para 5 as follows :

Labour Commissioner(C) is that they are the workers under the contractor. They have also taken pleas in their petition stating at one stage that they are the employees of the 4th respondent and at another stage they are the employees of the contactor . Their case before Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) as well as Central Advisory Board that they are contract labours and their nature of work is perennial . As such, the contract labour has to be prohibited under section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act . The Advisory Board also found and recommended for abolition of the jobs done by the petitioners as perennial in nature .

"On issuance of prohibition notification under section 10 ( 1 ) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise , in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the questionwhether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract Labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers ofthe benefit thereunder . Ifthe contract is found to be not genuirie but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour willhave to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specifiedby it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder."

Whether the alleged contract is a mere ruse/ camouflageoftheir legitimate benefits is a question of fact and the petitioner has to substantiate the same. In view of section 10 of Contract Labour (R&A) Act, there cannot be an automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the establishment concerned on issuance of notification under section 10( 1 ) prohibiting the employment of contract labour . It was observed in para 89 the said rulingas follows:

"In the light of the above discussion we are unable toperceive in section 10 any implicit requirement of automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the establishment concerned on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government under section 10 ( I ) prohibiting employment of contract labour in a given establishment ."

Itisstated byMWI that the contractor used to employ the experience and qualified persons for running and maintenance of sub stations and used to maintain the attendance register . In view of the terms and conditions of the tenders cum agreement, the 4th respondent used to supervise the work as to the uninterrupted supply of electricity to second, respondent . The 4th respondent is not expected to maintain the attendance register andMW 1has stated that in the event of unsatisfactory work of any worker we used to report to the contractor . The mere supervision of 4th respondent regarding proper working of the sub stations in order to said that they have got control over the petitioners who are working under the contractor. The responsibility of the principal contractor 27. The petitioner has come up with the new plea before this Tribunal that they are employees of the 4th respondent and the alleged contract is only a bogus and sham. But the petitioners could not adduce any satisfactory evidence to substantiate their plea. On the other hand , the document produced by the respondent shows that the maintenance of the sub- stations was awarded to the contract by calling tenders and payment was accordingly made . The Learned Counsel for the petitioner was pointed out that the year of calling tenders for certain years were altered. But on perusing those documents, it appears that the printed from of the years 1992-93 were used by altering the year as 1993-94. It is stated that MWI with the relevant records were destroyed after lapse of time . The available records have been filed which shows that the electrical sub - stations were run by respondent through the contractors and the petitioners were never employed by the 4th respondent and the material on record shows that the petitioners are the employees under contractor and agitated for abolition of contract labour before the Regional Labour Commissioner(C) and Central Advisory Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 2003 LAB IC 583 Gujarath High Court which is not applicable to the facts of the case . The said ruling is that the Government of India, Ministry of Labour has réferred that the dispute for Industrial Tribunal for adjudication as follows whether the action ofthe management of ONGC , Ahmedabad project in engaging 182 labours through various contracts in the last 5years on the work of perennial nature is justified? In the present case, there is no such reference to decide whether the nature of work is perennial in nature . The petitioners have filed these petitions under 2(a) 2 for re - instatement with consequential benefits on the ground that they are the employees ofthe 4th respondent . The petitioners could not substantiate that they are the employees of the 4th respondent andthe relationship of employee and employer exists between them . The ruling relied by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner 2001 SC cases 1121 is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the petitioner has failed to establish that the alleged contract between 4th respondent and respondent No.5 and respondent No.6 and other contractors is SHAM AND CAMOUFALG and brought into existence to deprive the

2324 G1/ 07-13 3210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

under CLRA is limited to the extent that if the contractor fails to provide amenities such as drinking water, latrines , first aid box etc. The principal employce has to provide such amenities and recover the cost and expense incurred from the contract from the amount payable to him . The another responsibility of the principal employee under section 21 of CLRA is in respect of the failure of the contractor to pay the wages .

The principal employee is liable to pay the wages to the contract labour and is entitled to deduct from the amount payable to the contract . It should be noted that the petitioner never raised the plea before Regional Labour Commissioner (C) or the Central Advisory Board that the contract entered in between the contractors and 4th respondent are not genuine and mere a camouflage to deprive the workers of their benefits under the act .

28. The respondent also filed license issued by Labour Commissioner to enter into contract for running and manning sub - stations . Ex . M2 and M3 discloses that the contract was concluded by respondent No.5 & respondent No. 6 with respondent No.4 in respect of manning operations of sub- stations in the premises of respondent No. 2.

29. The burden of proving that the petitioners are contract labour, cannot be placed on the respondent No. 4 merelybecause it was stated that petitioners worked under various contractors . The respondent No.1 to 4 has also stated in their counter that the petitioners might have worked under various contractors . The burden lies on the petitioner to place material to conclude that the alleged contracts entered are not real , but only camouflage, created to deprive the benefits of the petitioner . The petitioner could not produce any satisfactory evidence to discharge theirburden .

30. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of reinstatement with consequential benefits . Accordingly, an award is passed.

Dictated to Sri . P. Kanaka Raju, LDC transcribedby herand corrected by me on this the day of 12th April , 2007 .

T. RAMA CHANDRA RADDY, Presiding Officer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner :

WW1 : - Varghesmathew

WW2 : -Md.Javid

Witnesses examined Respondent:

MWI: -Pramod Kumar

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1 is the letter dated 25-7-2002 along with the report .

Ex.W2 is the letter 21-10-2004, written by the Secretary CACLB , asking for comments , enclosing the minutes .

Ex.W3 is the Gazette notification dated 18-1-2006.

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] Ex.W4 is dated 19-4-2006 showing the settlement . Documents marked for the Respondent is the copy of notification dated 18-1-2006. Ex.M1

is the certified copy of contract agreement No. GE( 1) RC/HYD 39 of 2005-06 awarded to M/ s Indu Electricals , Hyderabad. Ex.M2

Ex.M3 is the certified copy of contract agreement No.GE( 1 ) RCI /HYD 40 of 2005-06 awarded to M/s. Maruthi International , Hyderabad .

Ex.M4 is the certified copy of contract Agt No. GE( 1 ) RCI/HYD 57 of 2005-06 awarded to M/ s Maruthi International , Hyderabad .

Ex.M5 is the copy of CTC of Agt No. CERD/SEC -06 of 93-94 . EX.M6 is the copy of contract Agt No. GE( 1 ) RCI/HYD 51 of 2002-03.

Ex.M7 is the copy of contract Agt No.GE( 1 ) RCI/HYD 52 of2002-03.

Ex.M8 is the copy of contract Agt No.GE( 1 ) RCI/HYD 69 of2002-03.

Ex.M9 is the copy of contract Agt No.GE(1 ) RCI/HYD 48 of2003-04.

Ex.M10 is the copy of contract Agt No.GE(I ) RCI/HYD 49 of2003-04 .

Ex.M11 is the copy of contract AgtNo.GE( I ) RCI/HYD 66 of2003-04.

Ex.M12 is the copy of contract AgtNo.GE(I ) RCI/HYD 43 of2004-05.

Ex.M13 is the copy of contract Agt No.GE(I ) RCI/HYD 44 of2004-05 .

Ex.M14 is the copy of contract Agt No.GE(I ) RCI/HYD 62 of2004-05.

Ex.M15 is the copy of final bill to the contractor in Agt No.GE(E) /RCI/HYD 39 of2005-06.

Ex.M16 is the copy of final bill to the contractor in Agt No.GE(E)/ RCI/HYD 40 of2005-06.

Ex.MI7 is the copy of final bill to the contractor in Agt No.GE( E) /RCI /HYD 57 of2005-06 .

Ex.MI8 is the copy of Form - 2 dated 16-2-1974 issued by Asst. Labour Commissioner(C) , Hyderabad .

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1449-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-04-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/38/2000- आई. आर. ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3211 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007

Sh. Purshottam Lal S/o Sh. Khubchand Vyas w.e.f. 3-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

2. रेफ्रेन्स, न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना विधिवत रूप से जारी की गयी।

S.O. 1449.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department ofTelecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-04-2007 .

[No. L-40012/38 /2000- IR(DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायाधीश औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज.

पीठासीन अधिकारी- के. के. गुप्ता , आर.एच.जे.एस. रेफ्रेन्स प्रकरण क्रमांकः ओ.न्या./केन्द्रीय/-17/2000

दिनांक स्थापित : 31-7-2000

श्रम मंत्रालय

प्रसंग : भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली के आदेशांक एल. 40012/38/2000/आईआरडीयूदि. 29-5-2000

रेफ्रेन्स अन्तर्गत धारा 10( 1 ) ( घ)

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

मध्य

पुरूषोत्तम लाल आत्मज श्री खूबचन्द व्यास निवासी बामनिया का भट्टा तह. कपासन जिला चित्तोड़गढ़

.... प्रार्थी श्रमिक

एवं

टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रिक्ट इंजीनियर , टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट , चित्तोड़गढ़/राज.

3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक पुरूषोत्तमलाल की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट प्रस्तुत्प्त कर संक्षेप में है यह अभिकथित किया गया है कि उसे अप्रार्थी जिला दूर संचार प्रबन्धक , जिला चित्तोड़गढ़ जिसे तदुपरान्त " अप्रार्थी नियोजक" से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा द्वारा अपने अधीन दि. 6-11-95 से च.ने. कर्मचारी के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में नियुक्तकिया गया था तब से उसने 2-3-99 तक लगातार बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्य करते हुए 12 माह के अन्दर 240 दिन से भी अधिक समय तक कार्य कर लिया था , तथापि अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा उसे बिना कोई आरोप- पत्र दिये , जांच किये , स्पष्टीकरण व बचाव का अवसर दिये तथा नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व छटनी मुआवजा दिये दि. 3-3-99 से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया है जोकि अधिनियम की धारा 25-एफ एवं एन का उल्लंघन है । प्रार्थी को निश्चित अवधि के लिए नियुक्ति नहीं किया गया था बल्कि दैनिक वेतन श्रमिक के रूप में स्थाई पद पर नियुक्त किया गया था । प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र, वेतन भुगतान पर्ची, हाजिरी कार्ड आदि कुछ भी नहीं दिया गया , यह समस्त अभिलेख अप्रार्थी के कब्जे में मौजूद है । उक्त नियोजनावधि में प्रार्थी ने ही वास्तविक रूप में कार्य किया है , किन्तु बीच- बीच में दबाव डालकर भुगतान पर अलग- अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये हैं और इस प्रकार कृत्रिम व्यवधान देकर दूसरे नामों से प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर करवाकर अन्त में कार्य - व्यवधान का झूठा बहाना लेकर प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक किया गया है जो अनुचित श्रम आचरण व स्वेच्छाकारी है । प्रार्थी अनुचित रूप से सेवा से हटाये जाने के बाद से निरन्तर बेरोजगार चल रहा है और कहीं भी अन्यत्र लाभकारी नियोजन में नहीं रहा है । अन्त में प्रार्थना की गयी है कि उसे पिछले सम्पूर्ण वेतन , सेवा की निरन्तरता व अन्य समस्त लाभों सहित सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित किये जाने का अनुतोष प्रदान किया जावे।

.अप्रार्थी नियोजक

उपस्थित:

प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि :

श्रीराकेश यादव

श्रीविश्वजीत शर्मा

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि :

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक

26-3-2007

निर्णय

1. भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के उक्त आदेश दि. 29-5-2000 के जरिये निम्न रेफ्रेन्स, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णायार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है :-

4. अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर उक्त क्लेम का जबाव प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह प्रतिवाद किया गया है कि प्रार्थी को कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्त नहीं किया गया, न ही उसे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र दिया गया; इस कारण उनके मध्य श्रमिक व नियोजक का सम्बन्ध नहीं है । विभाग में जब कभी विशेष कार्य की आवश्यकता होती थी, दैनिक वेतन पर रख लिया जाता था और कार्य समाप्ति पर स्वयं प्रार्थी दूसरी जगह काम करने लग जाता था इसलिए सेवा से पृथक किये जाने का सवाल ही पैदा नहीं होता। प्रार्थी के मामले में अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं, प्रार्थी को कभी नियोजन में नहीं रखा गया इस कारण उसे कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र देने व नियोजन प्रक्रिया अपनाने की आवश्यकता नहीं थी। प्रार्थी ने कभी 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य भी नहीं किया है इस कारण अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना किया जाना आवश्यक नहीं है और वह कोई अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी का बेरोजगार रहना स्वीकार नहीं है , उसे कही भी दैनिक वेतन पर कार्य मिल सकता है और वह उसी आधार "Whether the action of the management of Telecom Deptt. Chittorgarh in terminating the services of 3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) पर आज भी कार्यरत है । अन्त में क्लेम प्रार्थी निराधार होने से सव्यय निरस्तकिये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है ।

5. प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य में स्वयं का तथा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से के. एल. परिहार, मण्डल उस अभियन्ता का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर परीक्षित करवाया गया है । पक्षकारों की ओर से प्रलेखिय साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत की गयी है।

6. बहस पक्षकारों की सुनी गयी , पत्रावली , उपलब्ध साक्ष्य व सामग्री का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन/परिशीलन किया गया।

8. प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपने क्लेक व शपथ- पत्र में यह कथन किया है कि उसको भुगतान; भुगतान 'बाउचर्स द्वारा किया जाता था और रजिस्टर में भी उसका इन्द्राज किया जाता था। कृत्रम व्यवधान देकर नाजायज दबाव डालकर अलग - अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये जाते थे जबकि वास्तव में कार्य उसके द्वारा ही किया गया है और उक्त अवधि में किये गये कार्य का भुगतान भी उसके द्वारा ही प्राप्त किया गया है। प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 3 कार्यालय टिप्पणी में प्रार्थी व अन्य श्रमिक रंगलाल आदि द्वारा किये गये कार्यों का भुगतान का इन्द्राज किया गया है व उसके कॉलम सं. 7 में अधिकारियों के लघु हस्ताक्षर है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रदर्श एम. 2 लगायत एम 69 तक जो भुगतान वाउचर्स की फोटों प्रतियां प्रस्तुत की गयी है , उन्हों चैपड के डी.ए., एवं ए ओ. के लघु हस्ताक्षर है और लगभग उसी तरह के लघु हस्ताक्षर प्रदर्श डबल्यू. 3 के कॉलम सें. 7 में अंकित है। अतः प्रदर्श डबल्यू. 3 के अवलोकन से ऐसा नहीं लगता कि यह दस्तावेज प्रार्थी द्वारा फरजी बनाया गया हो । इस सम्बन्ध में अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी से जिरह ने किसी प्रकार का सुझावात्मक प्रश्न नहीं किया है है कि यह दस्तावेज फरजी है और ना ही अपनी साक्ष्य में यह कहा है कि यह दस्तावेज फरजी है । किन्तु प्रार्थी ने अपनी जिरह में यह कथन किया है कि उसने 6-11-95 से लेकर 2-3-99 तक तीन अधिकारी कुमार सा. , पुष्कर सा.. व गुप्ता सा. के पास ही काम किया है जो उसे उसके हीनाम से पैमेन्ट देते थे । अतः उसके द्वारा यह अभिकथन करना कि उसे भिन्न- भिन्न नामों से भुगतान करते थे , सन्देहास्पद हो जाता है । अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रदर्श एम. 70 प्रार्थी के द्वारा किये गये कार्यदिवसों काविवरण प्रस्तुत किया गया है, उसमें अप्रैल , 98 से मार्च , 99 तक 199 दिन कार्य किया जाना बताया गया है , जिसमें मार्च , 99 के प्रारम्भ तक ही ये कार्यदिवस बताये गये है , अतः प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती 12 माह में मार्च , 98 में किये गये कार्यदिवसों को भी जोड़ा जाना आवश्यक है और उन्हें जोड़े जाने पर प्रार्थी के 209 दिन से अधिक कार्यदिवस हो जाते है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ने न्यायदृष्टांत " ए, आइ.आर. " 1986 एस. सी. 458- वर्कमैन आफ अमेरीकन एक्सप्रेस इन्टरनेशनल बैंकिंग कारपोरेशन बनाम मैनेजमेन्ट ऑफ अमेरीकन एक्सप्रैस इन्टरनेशनल बैंकिंग कोरपोरेशन " में यह स्पष्ट कहा है कि श्रमिक के कार्यदिवसों की गणना करते समय साप्ताहिक अवकाश व अन्य अवकाशों को भी जोड़ा जाना चाहिए । इस तरह से हस्तगत मामले से भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक के कार्यदिवसों से रविवारीय व अन्य अवकाशों को जोड़ा जाता है तो उसकी सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में उसके 240 दिन से अधिक कार्यदिवस हो जाते हैं ।

9. इस सम्बन्ध में कोई विवाद नहीं है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी था, उसने स्वंय ने अपने क्लेम व साक्ष्य में इस तरह के कथन किये हैं । इस सम्बन्ध में भी कोई विवाद नहीं है अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक को सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व कोई नोटिस अथवा मुआवजा आदि नहीं दिया गया है और धारा 25 - एफ अधिनियम की पालना नहीं की गयी है । अतः अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक की गयी सेवामुक्तिअनुचित एवं अवैध होना पायी जाती है ।

10. प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपनी साक्ष्य में एक अन्य व्यक्ति लक्ष्मण सिंह के पक्ष में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम 7. प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि प्राथीं श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां लगातार कार्य किया है । उनका यह भी कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक का कार्य किया है व उसे बिना नोटिस व मुआवजे के हटा दिया है। उनका यह भी कहना है कि अप्रार्थी ने , प्रार्थी से अलग- अलग नामों से हस्ताक्षर करवाकर भुगतान किया है ताकि उसके 240 दिन पूरे नहीं हो सके। उनका कहना है कि प्रार्थी ने कार्यालय टिप्पणी प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 3 प्रस्तुत कीहै जिसकी असल न्यायाधिकरण ने अप्रार्थी से तलब की है, किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने उसकी असल प्रस्तुत नहीं की है । इसी तरह प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत भुगतान बाऊचर्स की फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 4 जिसमें कि प्रार्थी स्वयं के नाम व अन्य नाम रंगलाल , शांतीलाल , रामेश्वर, जगदीश आदि के नाम के भुगतान का उल्लेख है , किन्तु वास्तव में प्रार्थी द्वारा ही उन नामों से कार्य करके एवं उन नामों के हस्ताक्षर करके भुगतान प्राप्त किया गया है और वे हस्ताक्षर भी देखने से प्रार्थी के द्वारा किये गये हस्ताक्षरों की लिखावट जैसे ही है , के असल भी न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा तलब किये गये , किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने असल प्रस्तुत नहीं किये हैं। अतः इस आधार पर अप्रार्थी के विरूद्ध विपरीत उपधारणा ली जानी चाहिए। उनका यह भी कथन है कि तर्क के लिए यह मान भी लिया जाए कि प्रार्थी ने उक्त अन्य नामों से कार्य नहीं किया है , तब भी अप्रार्थी के द्वारा , प्रार्थी के किये गये कार्यदिवसों के विवरण- पत्र प्रदर्श एम. 70 जोकि कम्प्यूटर द्वारा तैयार किया गया है , से अप्रैल , 98 से मार्च , 99 तक 199 कार्य दिवस बताये गये हैं। यह लगभग 11 साह के कार्य दिवस है क्योंकि मार्च के प्रारम्भ में ही प्रार्थी कोसेवामुक्ट कर दिया गया था, अतः इसके मार्च 98 के किये गये कार्य दिवस को जोड़ा जाय तो ये कार्य दिवस 209 दिन से अधिक हो जाते है और इनमें नियामानुसार साप्ताहिक व राष्ट्रीय अवकाशों को भी जोड़ा जाय तो ये 240 दिन से अधिक कार्यदिवस हो जाते है। अप्रार्थी पक्ष का यह कथन है कि उक्त दस्तावेज के असल उनके यहां उपलब्ध नहीं हैं तथा प्रार्थी पुरूषोत्तम लाल के द्वारा किये गये कार्य के भुगतान बाउचर्स प्रदर्श एम. 19 लगायत एम. 69 उन्होंने प्रस्तुत कर दिये है । उन्होंने इस तथ्य को स्वीकार किया है कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू4 के रूप में जो बाउचर्स प्रार्थी ने प्रस्तुत किये हैं वे उनके कार्यालय में ही हैं , किन्तु प्रार्थी पुरूषोत्तम के अलावा जिन अन्य कर्मचारियों के बाउचर्स है , वे उनके यहां उपलब्ध नहीं है । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 3 के सम्बन्ध में उनका कहना है कि यह फरजी दस्तावेज है। उनका यह भी कहना है कि प्रार्थी ने जिरह में स्वयं यह स्वीकार कर लियाहै कि उसका भुगतान उसके नाम से ही करते ये अतः अलग - अलग नाम से उसे भुगतान किये जाने के सम्बन्ध से किया गया कथन मानने योग्य नहीं है। 3213

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

न्यायालय , जयपुर द्वारा पारित पंचाट दिनांकित 19-10-2001 की फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 5 के रूप में प्रस्तुत की है जिसके अवलोकन से यह पाया जाता है कि न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा उक्त व्यक्ति को काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछली कोई मजदूरी नहीं दिलायी गयी है । ऐसी स्थिति में हस्तगत मामले में भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक कार्य नहीं तो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछले वेतन के रूप में कुछ भी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रभिक के रूप में सेवा में पुनस्र्थापित होने का अधिकारी घोषित होने योग्य पाया जाता है ।

परिणामतः राजस्थान सरकार , श्रम विभाग द्वारा सम्प्रेषित रेफ्रेन्स को अधिनिर्णीत कर इस प्रकार उत्तरित किया जाता है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रिक्ट इंजीनियर , टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट, चित्तौड़गढ़ , राज. द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक पुरूषोतम लाल आत्मज खूबचन्द व्यास को सेवामुक्त किया जाना अनुचित एवं अवैध है। प्रकरण के तथ्यों व समस्तपरिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए प्रार्थी श्रमिक काम नहीं तो वेर्तन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछला कोई वेतन प्राप्त करने काअधिकारी नहीं है और वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में सेवा में. पुनस्र्थापित होने का अधिकारी है।

के.के. गुप्ता , न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1450.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-4-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/37/2000- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007

S. O. 1450. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ) ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-4-2007.

[No.L-40012/37/2000- IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायाधीश , ओद्यौगिक न्यायाधिकरण/केन्द्रीय /कोटा/राज./ पीठासीन अधिकारी- के. के. गुप्ता , आर. एच. जे. एस.

रेफ्रेन्स प्रकरण क्रमांक: औ.न्या. केन्द्रीय/ 15/2000

दिनांक स्थापित: 31/7/2000

प्रसंग : भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेशांक के एल 40012/37/2000/आईआर(डीयू) दि. 30-5-2000

रेफ्रेन्स अन्तर्गत धारा 10( 1 ) (घ)

ओद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

मध्य

कालूराम सैन आत्मज श्री जी.डी. सैन द्वारा मंगलसिंह सैन म.नं. 35 कन्ट्रोल के पास, बी-51 ,

प्रार्थी श्रमिक चित्तौड़गढ़/ राज ./

एवं

टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रिक्ट इंजीनियर , टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट,

अप्रार्थी नियोजक चित्तौड़गढ़/ राज. /

उपस्थित

श्री राकेश यादव प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि:-

श्री विश्वजीत शर्मा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि :-

26-3-07 अधिनिर्णयदिनांक:

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के उक्त आदेश दि. 30-5-2000 के जरिये निम्न रेफ्रेन्स , ओद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्ययाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है: -

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Deptt. Chittorgarh in terminating the services of Sh. Kaluram Sen S/o Sh. Gopal Dass Sen w.c.f. 3-3-99 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

2. रेफ्रेन्स , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना विधिवत रूप में जारी की गयी ।

3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक कालूराम सैन की ओर से क्लेम स्टेटमेन्ट प्रस्तुत कर संक्षेप में यह अभिकथित दिया गया है कि उसे अप्रार्थी जिला दूर संचार प्रबन्धक, जिला चित्तोड़गढ़ (जिसे तदुपरान्त " अप्रार्थी नियोजक " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) द्वारा अपने अधीन दि.2-12-96 से च. श्रे. कर्मचारी के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भागी श्रमिक के रूप में नियुक्त किया था तब से उसने 2-3-99 लगातार बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्य करते हुए 12 माह के अन्दर 240 दिन से भी अधिक समय तक कार्य कर लिया था, तथापि अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा उसे बिना कोई आरोप-पत्र दिये , जांच किये, स्पष्टीकरण व बचाव का अवसर दिये तथा नोटिस अथवा वेतन व छंटनी मुआवजा दिये दि. 3-3-99 से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया है जोकि अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ एवं एन का उल्लंघन है । प्रार्थी को निश्चित अवधि के लिए नियुक्त नहीं किया गया था बल्कि दैनिक वेतन श्रमिक के रूप में स्थाई पद पर नियुक्तकिया गया था । प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र , वेतन भुगतान पर्ची, 3214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29, 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] हाजिरी कार्ड आदि कुछ भी नहीं दिया गया , यह समस्त अभिलेख अप्रार्थी के कब्जी में मौजूद है। उक्त नियोजनावधि ने प्रार्थी ने ही वास्तविक रूप में कार्य किया है , किन्तु बीच- बीच में दबाव डालकर भुगतान पर अलग- अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये हैं और इस प्रकार कृत्रिम व्यवधान देकर दूसरे नामी से प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर करवाकर अन्त में कार्य- व्यवधान का झूठा बहाना लेकर प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक किया गया है जी अनुचित श्रम आचरण व स्वेच्छाकारी है। प्रार्थी अनुचितरूप से सेवा से हटाये जाने के बाद से निरन्तर बेरोजगार चल रहा है और कहीं भी अन्यत्र लाभकारी नियोजन में नहीं रहा है । अन्त में प्रार्थना की गयी है कि उसे पिछले सम्पूर्ण वेतन , सेवा की निरन्तरता व अन्य समस्त लाभों संहित सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित किये जाने का अनुतोष प्रदान किया जावे ।

कल्याण सैन के नाम से भी अप्रार्थी ने हस्ताक्षर करके भुगतान दिया था, जबकि वास्तव में कार्य प्रार्थी कालूराम सैन ने ही किया है । अप्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रार्थी के भुगतान वाऊचर्स तथा कार्य विवरण पत्र प्रदर्श एम. 1 , एम. 16 तथा एम 45 की फोंटोप्रतियाँ प्रस्तुत की गयी है जोकि मिथ्या है प्रार्थी टीडीएम , के यहाँ च. श्रे. कर्मचारी का कार्य करता था और उसके यहाँ से फैक्स भेजने का कार्य भी करता था तथा फैक्स रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डबल्यू, 1 में कई जगह पर उसके हस्ताक्षर मौजूद है, किन्तु उन दिनाकों में उसका कार्य करना अप्रार्थी के द्वारा नहीं बतलाया गया है। उनका यह भी कहमा है कि प्रदर्श डबल्यू 3 फोटोप्रति कैजुअल रजिस्टर में भी कई स्थान पर प्रार्थी के द्वारा कार्य करना बतलाया गया है , किन्तु अप्रार्थी द्वारा कार्य विवरण में उनका कोई जिक्र नहीं है तथा दि. 5-10-98 से 9-10-98 तक की अवधि में कल्याण सैन के द्वारा कार्य करना बतलाया गया है , जबकि अप्रार्थी द्वारा इस अवधि के भुगतान वाऊचर्स प्रार्थी कालूराम के प्रस्तुत किये गये है । इससे यह साबित होता है कि अप्रार्थी ने कल्याण सेन के नाम से भी प्रार्थी कालूराम से कार्य करवाया है। इन सबके भुगतान वाऊचर्स अप्रार्थी के पास मौजूद है। यदि प्रार्थी कालूराम को उनका भुगतान नहीं किया होता व उससे उन पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं करवाये होते तो अप्रार्थी ने उन बाऊचर्स को भी प्रस्तुत कर दिया होता , किन्तु चूंकि अप्रार्थी ने उन वाऊचर्स को प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है , अतः इससे उसके विरूद्ध विपरीत उपधारणा ली जानी चाहिए । इस तरह प्रार्थी , अप्रार्थी के यहां सेवामुक्तिके पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक का कार्य कर चुका था।

4. अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से उक्त क्लेम का जबाव प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह प्रतिवाद किया गया है कि प्रार्थी को कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्त नहीं किया गया , न ही उसे कोई नियुक्ति पत्र दिया गया , इस कारण उनके मध्य श्रमिक व नियोजक का सम्बन्ध नहीं है। विभाग में जब कभी विशेष कार्य की आवश्यकता होती थी, दैनिक वेतन पर रख लिया जाता था और कार्य समाप्ति पर स्वयं प्रार्थी दूसरी जगह काम करने लग जाता था इसलिए सेवा से पृथक किये जाने का सवाल ही पैदा नहीं होता । प्रार्थी के मामले में अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं, प्रार्थी को कभी नियोजन में नहीं रखा गया इस कारण उसे कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र देने व नियोजन प्रक्रिया अपनाने की आवश्यकता नहीं थी । प्रार्थी ने कभी 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य भी नहीं किया है इस कारण अधिनियम के प्रावधानों की पालना किया जाना आवश्यक नहीं है और वह कोई अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी का बेरोजगार रहना स्वीकार नहीं है, उसे कही भी दैनिक वेतन पर कार्य मिल सकता है और वह उसी आधार पर आज भी कार्यरत है। अन्त में. क्लेम प्रार्थी निराधार होने से सव्यय निरस्त किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है ।

5. प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य में स्वयं का तथा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से के. एल. परिहार, मण्डल उपः अभियन्ता का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर परीक्षित करवाया गया है । पक्षकारों की और से प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत की गयी है।

6. बहस पक्षकारो की सुनी गयी, पत्रावली , उपलब्ध साक्ष्य व सामग्री का ध्यानपूर्वक परिशीलन किया गया ।

7. प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने लगातार कार्य किया है। और उसने सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक का कार्य कर लिया है। किन्तु उसे सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व कोई नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा आदि नहीं दिया गया है । उनका यह कहना है कि प्रार्थी ने , अपनी साक्ष्य में फैक्स रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डबल्यू, । , वेतन बढ़ाने के प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रदर्श डबल्यू, 2 , पेमेन्ट ऑफ केजुअल लेबर्स ओफिस टीडीएम, चित्तौड़गढ़ प्रदर्श डबल्यू. 3 , केजुअल लेबर्स की फाईल जी-45 की फोटोप्रतियाँ पेश की है जिनकी असल अप्रार्थी नियोजक के पास है , जिन्हें मंगवाने पर भी उसने प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है। उनका यह भी कहना है कि प्रार्थी से अन्य श्रमिक कमल सेन एवं

8. प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपने क्लेम में 2 वर्ष 3 माह तक लगातार कार्य करना कहा है तथा यह भी कहा है कि उसने 12 माह में 240 दिन से अधिक लगातार कार्य कर लिया था तथा यह भी कहा है कि उससे भिन्न - भिन्न नामों से हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये है , जबकि वास्तव में उसी ने कार्य किया है । उसे मौखिक आदेश से हटा दिया गया था और कोई नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा आदि नहीं दिया गया। प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथ- पत्र से इन तथ्यों की पुष्टि की है और यह भी कथन किया है कि उसे हटाने के पूर्व 12 माह में उसके द्वारा 240 दिन से अधिक निरन्तर रूप से कार्य कर लिया गया था और यह भी कथन किया है कि वह टीडीएम के चेम्बर में चपरासी का कार्य करता था और फैक्स भेजने का भी कार्य करता था और रोजाना हाजिरी भरी जाती थी । उसे कैजुअल लेबर पेमेन्ट रजिस्टर के द्वारा पेमेन्ट दिया जाता था, उसके काम में कोई ब्रेक नहीं है । पेमेन्ट आफ केजुअल लेबर्स आफ टीडीएम , चित्तौड़गढ़ की फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 3 है जिसकी असल अप्रार्थी के रेकार्ड में मौजूद है। उसने यह भी कथन किया है कि बी- बीच में ब्रेक दिखाने के लिए कई बार उस पर नाजायज दबाव डालकर भुगतान पर अलग-अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये है , जबकि वास्तव में उसी ने कार्य किया है और उसी ने भुगतान प्राप्त किया है। जिरह में उसने कहा है कि वह फैक्स तथा चपरासी का काम करता था । यह बात सही है कि कभी- कभी बीच में उससे दूसरे नाम से हस्ताक्षर पेमेन्ट के लिए करवाये जाते थे । यह सही है कि मैने कालूराम सेन , कल्याण तथा कमल सेन के नाम से हस्ताक्षर किये हैं। मुझसे पूरे दो वर्ष तीन माह की अवधि में तीनों नामों [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

3215

जाते थे , जबकि वास्तव में कार्य प्रार्थी कालूराम सेन ने ही किया था। अतः उक्त विवेचन से अप्रार्थी के विरुद्ध यह विपरीत उपधारणा बनाये जाने का पर्याप्त आधार है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत कार्यदिवसों का विवरण सही नहीं है।

से ही हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये थे । अप्रार्थी गवाह के. एल. परिहार ने अपनी साक्ष्य में कहा हैं कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने उसके सामने कार्य नही किया है, ना हस्ताक्षर किये है और ना उसके सामने भुगतान किया है। उसकी जानकारी में नहीं है कि के.सी. पथारिया ने प्रार्थी पर नौकरी से निकालने का दबाव डालकर अलग - अलग नामों से हस्ताक्षर करवाये थे। यह भी गलत है कि किसी दूसरे नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये थे।

9. अप्रार्थी का यह तर्क रहा है कि प्रदर्श डबल्यू 3 दस्तावेज फरजी है और प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने कभी भी किसी भी वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य नहीं किया है ।

11. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर यह निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक का कार्य कर लिया है । इस सम्बन्ध में कोई विवाद नहीं है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक एक दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक था व नियमित प्रक्रिया अपनाकर उसकी नियुक्ति नहीं की गयी थी। इस सम्बन्ध में भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक को सेवामुक्ति के पूर्व नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया और ध ास 25 - एफ की पालना नहीं की गयी। अतः अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक को की गयी सेवामुक्ति अनुचित एवं अवैध होना पायी जाती है ।

12. प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपनी साक्ष्य में एक अन्य व्यक्ति लक्ष्मण सिंह के पक्ष में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर द्वारा पारित पंचाट दिनांकित 19/10/2001 की फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 5 के रूप में प्रस्तुत की है जिसके अवलोकन से यह पाया जाता है कि न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा उक्त व्यक्ति को काम नहीं तो वेतन नहींसिद्धात के आधार पर पिछली कोई मजदूरी नहीं दिलायी गयी है । ऐसी स्थिति है हस्तगत मामले में भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक कार्य नहीं तो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछले वेतन के रूप में कुछ भी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै और वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित होने का अधिकारी घोषित होने योग्य पाया जाता है ।

परिणामतः राजस्थान सरकार , श्रम विभाग द्वारा सम्प्रेषित रेफ्रेन्स को अधिनिर्णत कर इस प्रकार उत्तरि किया जाता है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक टेलीकाम डिस्ट्रिक्ट इंजीनियर , टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट, चित्तौड़गढ़/ राज./द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक कालूराम सेन पुत्र जी.डी.सेन को सेवामुक्त किया जाना अनुचित एवं अवैध है । प्रकरण के तथ्यों व समस्तपरिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए प्रार्थी श्रमिक काम नहींतो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछला कोई वेतन प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहाँ दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित होने का अधिकारी है ।

के. के. गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2007.

का.आ. 1451. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-4-07 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/36/2000- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] 10. मैंने उक्त तर्क- वितर्क पर मनन किया तथा सम्पूर्ण साक्ष्य व पत्रावली का परिशीलन किया । अप्रार्थी की ओर से भुगतान वाऊचर्स जिसके कि द्वारा प्रार्थी कालूराम सेन को भुगतान किया गया है, की फोटोप्रतियां प्रस्तुत की हैं जिन पर कि प्रार्थी कालूराम सेन के हस्ताक्षर हैं तथा इन पर चेक्ड के उनके अधिकारी डी.ए. एण्ड जे.ऐ. ओ. के लघु हस्ताक्षर हैं। प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू, 3 के अन्तिम कॉलम में जिन अधिकारियों के लघु हस्ताक्षर बताये गये हैं, उनके लघु हस्ताक्षर अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत भुगतान वाऊचर्स पर भी पाये जाते हैं । अप्रार्थी पक्ष को इन दस्तावेजात की फोटोप्रति , प्रार्थी ने अपना शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत करने की दि. 26-7-2002 को ही दे दी थी औरं तदुपरान्त पुनः उनके मांगने पर फिर दी गयी , किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने इनके असल उपलब्ध नहीं होने के आधार पर प्रस्तुत नहीं किये और यदि अप्रार्थी यह कथन करता है कि इन दस्तावेजात पर उनके अधि- कारियों के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है तो वो उन अधिकारियों को अपनी साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत कर वस्तुस्थिति स्पष्ट कर सकता था । अप्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत गवाह के. एल. परिहार ने भी अपने साक्ष्य में इन दस्तावेजात के फरजी होने का कथन नहीं किया है व यह भी नहीं कहा है कि उनके अधिकारियों के इन दस्तावेजात पर हस्ताक्षर नहीं है। इन दस्तावेजात प्रदर्श डबल्यू । लगायत 4 को देखने से ऐसा प्रतीत नहीं होता हैं कि ये फरजी है । दस्तावेज प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 3 में प्रार्थी के कार्य करने के साथ- साथ कल्याण सेन व कमल सैन के द्वारा भी कार्य करना बतलाया गया है , किन्तु कल्याण सेन व कमल सेन के भुगतान बाऊचर्स अप्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत नहीं किये गये हैं। इस तरह प्रार्थी श्रमिक का यह कथन कि उसने स्वयं ही वास्तविक रूप में कार्य करके अपने तथा कल्याण सेन व कमल सेन के नाम से हस्ताक्षर करके भुगतान प्राप्त किया है , सत्य प्रतीत होता है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी के कार्यदिवसों का विवरण जो प्रस्तुत किया गया है वो भी सही प्रतीत नहीं होता है । उदाहरण के लिए प्रदर्श एम. 45 में वर्ष 98 से 99 तक की अवधि के मध्य किये गये कार्य का जो विवरण प्रस्तुत किया गया है, उसमें प्रार्थी कालूराम सेन के द्वारा फैक्स रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 से अंकित तिथि 11/1 , 12/1 , 13/1 , 15/1 , 18/1 , 20/1 , 21/1 , 25/1 , 27/1, 8/2 तथा 9/2/99 को फैक्स भेजने के हस्ताक्षर हैं, जिन्हें नहीं दर्शाया गया है। इससे पूर्व भी प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 में कई स्थान पर प्रार्थी कालूराम सेन द्वारा फैक्स भेजने के हस्ताक्षर हैं, किन्तु अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत कार्यदिवस विवरण में उन्हें नहीं दर्शाया गया है । इससे प्रार्थी के इस कथन की पुष्टि होती है कि भुगतान बाऊचर्स पर भुगतान देते समय कल्याण सेन व कमल सेन के नाम से हस्ताक्षर प्रार्थी से करवाये

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी 3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART H-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi, the 23rd April , 2007

S. O. 1451. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Kota as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-4-2007 .

[No. L -40012/36/2000- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण/केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज. पीठासीन अधिकारी-के.के. गुप्ता, आर. एच. जे. एस.

रेफ्रेन्स प्रकरण कमाकः औ.न्या./केन्द्रीय / 14/2000

दिनांक स्थापितः 31/7/2000

प्रसंग : भारत भरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश के एल 40012/36/2000/ आईआर ( डीयू)

दि. 29-5-2000

रेफ्रेन्स अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) (घ)

ओद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

मध्य

रतन सिंह आत्मज श्री बालसिंह निवासी मागेड़ा जिला भीलवाड़ा । प्रार्थी श्रमिक

एंव

3. प्रार्थी श्रमिक रतनसिंह की ओर से क्लैम स्टेटमेन्ट प्रस्तुत कर संक्षेप में यह अभिकथित किया गया है कि उसे अप्रार्थी जिला दूर संचार प्रबन्धक, जिला चित्तोड़गढ़' ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अप्रार्थी नियोजक " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) द्वारा अपेने अधीनं दि. 22-4-96 से चतुर्थ श्रेणी के कर्मचारी के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में राजस्व शाखा में नियुक्त किया था तब से उसने 2-3-99 तक लगातार बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्य करते हुए 12 माह के अन्दर 240दिन से भी अधिक समय तक कार्य कर लिया था , तथापि अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा उसे बिना कोई आरोप - पत्र दिये , जांच किये , स्पष्टीकरण व बचाव का अवसर दिये तथा नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व छंटनी मुआवजा दिये दि. 3-3-99 से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया है जोकि अधिनियम की धारा 25 एफ या एन का उल्लंघन है । प्रार्थी को निश्चित अवधि के लिए नियुक्त नहीं किया गया था बल्कि दैनिक वेतन श्रमिक के रूप में स्थाई पद पर नियुक्त किया गया था । प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्ति- पत्र , वेतन भुगतान पर्ची, हाजिरी कार्ड आदि कुछ भी नहीं दिया गया , यह समस्त अभिलेख अप्रार्थी के कब्जे में मौजूद है । उक्त नियोजनावधि ने प्रार्थी ने ही वास्तविक रूप में कार्य किया है , किन्तु बीच - बीच में दबाव डालकर भुगतान पर अलग - अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये गये हैं और इस प्रकार कृत्रिम व्यवधान देकर दूसरे नामों से प्रार्थी के हस्ताक्षर करवाकर अन्त में कार्य- व्यवधान का झूठा बहाना लेकर प्रार्थी को सेवा से पृथक किया गया है जो अनुचित श्रम आचरण व स्वेच्छाकारी है । प्रार्थी अनुचित रूप से सेवा से हटाये जाने के बाद से निरन्तर बेरोजगार चल रहा है और कहीं भी अन्यत्र लाभकारी नियोजन में नहीं रहा है । अन्त में प्रार्थना की गयी है कि उसे पिछले सम्पूर्ण वेतन , सेवा की निरन्तरता व अन्य समस्त लाभों सहित सेवा में पुनस्र्थापित किये जाने का अनुतोष प्रदान किया जावे।

अप्रार्थी नियोजक

टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रिक्ट इंजीनियर , टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट, चित्तौड़गढ़/ राज. /

उपस्थित

श्री राकेश यादव

प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः-

श्री विश्वजीत शर्मा

अप्रार्थी नियोजका की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः-

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक :

26-3-07

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के उक्त आदेश दि. 29-5-2000 के जरिये निम्न रेफ्रेन्स , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जावेगा ) की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्ययाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है:-

4. अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से उक्त क्लेम का जवाब श्रेणी करते हुए यह प्रतिवाद किया गया है कि प्रार्थी को कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रूप में नियुक्त नहीं किया गया, ना ही उसे कोई नियुक्तिपत्र दिया गया , इस कारण उनके मध्य श्रमिक व नियोजक का सम्बन्ध नहीं है । विभाग में जब कभी विशेष कार्य की आवश्यकता होती थी, दैनिक वेतन पर रख लिया जाता था और कार्य समाप्ति पर स्वंय प्रार्थी दूसरी जगह काम करने लग जाता था इसलिए सेवा से पृथक किये जाने का सवाल ही पैदा नहीं होता । प्रार्थी के मामले में अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं, प्रार्थी को कभी नियोजन में नही रखा गया इस कारण उसे काई नियुक्ति- पत्र देने व नियोजक प्रक्रिया अपनाने की आवश्यकता नहीं थी। प्रार्थी ने कभी 240 दिन तक लगातार कार्य भी नहीं किया है इस कारण अधिनियम के प्रावधानों का पालन किया जाना आवश्यक नहीं है और वह कोई अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी का बेरोजगार रहना स्वीकार नहीं है। उसे कहीं भी दैनिक वेतन पर कार्य मिल सकता है और वह उसी आधार पर आज भी कार्यरत है । अन्त में क्लेम प्रार्थी निराधार होने से सव्यय निरस्त किये जाने की प्रार्थना की गयी है ।

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom Deptt. Chittorgarh in terminating the services of Sh. Ratan Singh S/o Sh . Balsingh w.e.f. 3-3-99 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled land from which date ?"

2. रेफ्रेन्स, न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना विधिवत रूप में जारी की गयी।

5. प्रार्थी ने साक्ष्य में स्वंय का तथा अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से श्री के. एल. परिहार, मण्डल उप अभियन्ता का शपथ - पत्र प्रस्तुत 3217 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19 , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

कर कर परीक्षित करवाया गया है । पक्षकारों की ओर से प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत की गयी है ।

भुगतान दिया। उसे पेमेन्ट प्रतिमाह दिया जाता था , मगर वाउचर सात दिन के अन्दर बना करते थे और उस पर सात दिन मे साइन हुआ करते थे। आगे कहा है कि मैने रतन सिंह के नाम पेमेन्ट ली है और 240 दिन की पेमेन्ट उठायी है।

6. बहस पक्षकारों की सुनी गयी , पत्रवाली , उपलब्ध साक्ष्य व सामग्री का ध्यानपूर्वक परिशीलन किया गया।

7. प्रार्थी का यह तर्क है कि प्रार्थी ने दि. 24-4-96 से अप्रार्थी दूर संचार विभाग जिला चित्तौड़गढ़ में लगातार काम किया है और 3-3-99 के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य कर लिया है । कृत्रिम ब्रेक देने के लिए उसे भिन्न - भिन्न नामों से भुगतान किया गया है, जबकि वास्तव में उसने ही कार्य किया है । उसे बिना नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजे के अवैध रूप से हटा दिया है । अप्रार्थी का कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने कभी भी लगातार 240 दिन तक कार्य नहीं किया है, वह दैनिक वेतन भागी कर्मचारी था , जब -जब आवश्यकता होती थी उसे रख लिया जाता था, नियमित प्रक्रिया अपनाकर उसकी नियुक्ति नहीं की गयी थी । उनका यह भी कहना है कि प्रार्थी ने सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में 240 दिन तक कार्य नहीं किया है ।

10. अप्रार्थी गवाह श्री के. एल. परिहार, उपमण्डल अभियन्ता ने अपने शपथ- पत्र मे कहा है कि जब विशेष कार्य की आवश्यकता होती थी, प्रार्थी श्रमिक को दैनिक वेतन के आधार पर लगाया जाता था । विभाग की ओर से प्रदर्श एम. 1 लगायत एम. 95 फोटो प्रतियां दस्तावेज के रूप है प्रस्तुत की गयी हैं व प्रदर्श एम.70 प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा दिये गये कार्य का वार्षिक विवरण है । जिरह में इस गवाह ने यह स्वीकार किया है कि प्रार्थी ने उसके सामने कार्य नहीं किया है और वह रेकार्ड के आधार पर बता रहा है । दि. 24-4-96 से 2-3-99 तक प्रार्थी ने कभी- कभी कार्य किया है । यह सही है कि यह पद आज भी हमारे विभाग में है। प्रार्थी को प्रतिदिन 56 रु. दिये जाते थे जो प्रदर्श एम. 7 के अनुसार बता रहा हूं। प्रार्थी से सुबह 10 बजे से सांयकाल 5 बजे तक काम लिया जाता था। उसने आगे यह भी कथन किया है कि मेरी जानकारी में नहीं है कि श्री के. सी. पथारयिा ने प्रार्थी पर दबाव डालकर अलग - अलग नामों से हस्ताक्षर करवाये थे। 8. प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से क्लेम में यह कथन किया गया है किदि. 3-3-99 से अचानक मौखिक आदेश से सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया , नोटिस व मुआवजा नहीं दिया , वास्तविक रूप से उसी ने कार्य किया है और भुगतान भी प्राप्त किया है , किन्तु प्रतिपक्षी ने बीच-बीच में कई बार व्यवधान डालकर अलग - अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर करवाये है और समस्त भुगतान पर प्रार्थी के ही हस्ताक्षर है । अप्रार्थी ने जवाब प्रस्तुत कर यह कथन किया है प्रार्थी का उक्त कथन स्वीकार नहीं है । प्रार्थी को कार्य की आवश्यकतानुसार लगाया जाता था और उसने 240 दिन तक किसी वर्ष में कार्य नहीं किया है ।

11. प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि का यह कथन है कि प्रार्थी की ओर से प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 , अप्रार्थी विभग द्वारा रखा गया रेकार्ड है और उसकी फोटोप्रतियां प्रार्थी ने प्रस्तुत की है। अप्रार्थी को इनकी प्रतियां दि. 26-7-2002 को शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत करने के समय दे दी गयी थीं, किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने इन दस्तावेज के सम्बन्ध में अपनी साक्ष्य में कुछ भी नही कहा है और जब न्यायाधिकरण ने इन दस्तावेज की असल मगवायी तो अप्राथी ने कहा कि इनकी असल उनके पास उपलब्ध नहीं है। प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपनी साक्ष्य में इन दस्तावेजात को साबित कर दिया है। उसने इन पर अपने हस्ताक्षर होना व कॉलम न. 6 पर अप्रार्थी के अधिकारी के हस्ताक्षर होना साबित किया है । उनका यह भी तर्क है कि अप्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत वेतन भुगतान बाऊचर प्रदर्श एम. 3 लगा. 95 पर चैर्ल्ड व वेरीफाई के उनके अधिकारी जेऐओटीआर के हस्ताक्षर है । यदि उन हस्ताक्षर का प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डबल्यू 1 के कॉलम न. 6 में कित जेऐओटीआर के हस्ताक्षरों से मिलान किया जाये तो वो एक ही व्यक्ति के द्वारा किये हुए हैं और उसके कॉलम नं. 7 है सभी प्राप्ति के हस्ताक्षर प्रार्थी रतनसिंह के है । इससे यह साबित होता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने ही भगवान सिंह , कालू सिंह , आदि नामों से कार्य किया है और यदि सेवामुक्ति के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष में इन सभी के कार्यकाल को जोड़ दिया जाये तो 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य करना पाया जाता है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी पक्ष का कथन है कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 के असल उनके यहां उपलब्ध नहीं है । प्रार्थी रतन सिंह ने हस्ताक्षर बाद में कर दिये होंगे। उनका यह भी कहना है कि यह रजिस्टर फरजी है ।

12. मैंने भुगतान रजिस्टर फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । व अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत भुगतान वाऊचर्स का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया और संपूर्ण साक्ष्य का परिशीलन किया। मैं यह पाता हूं कि भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 के कॉलम न. 6 मे जेऐओटीआर अधिकारी के द्वारा जो लघु हस्ताक्षर किये हुए है , उसी तरह के लघु हस्ताक्षर कई 9. शपथ- पत्र में प्रार्थी रतन सिंह ने यह कहा कि उसे 22-4-96 को चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में टी. आर. सेक्शन में लगाया गया था और सेवा से हटाये जाने के पूर्व पिछले 12 माह में लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक कार्य कर लिया है । नियोजक उसे किसी प्रकार का दस्तावेज नहीं देते थे , छटनी मुआवजा भी नहीं दिया है । भुगतान हस्ताक्षर करवाकर दिया जाता था। भुगतान वाऊचर द्वारा किया जाता था एवं रजिस्टर में भी एन्ट्री होती थी । पेमेन्ट व हाजिरी का समस्त रेकार्ड प्रतिपक्षी के रेकार्ड में एकाउन्ट सेक्शन में मौजूद है जिसे मंगाकर देखा जा सकता है । प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा बीच-बीच में कृत्रिम ब्रेक देकर उससे नाजायज तौर पर अलग नाम से हस्ताक्षर कराये जाते थे , जबकि वास्तव में उसी ने कार्य किया है और उक्त अवधिके दौरान किये गये कार्य का पेमेन्ट भी उसी ने प्राप्त किया है । आगे यह भी कहा है कि प्रतिपक्षी पेमेन्ट रजिस्टर में मेरे पेमेन्ट का हिसाब दर्ज करता था जो प्रदर्श डबल्यू 1 है उसके कॉलम न. 5 में मेरे हस्ताक्षर है तथा कॉलम सं. 6 में जूनियर एकाउन्ट आफिसर के हस्ताक्षर मौजूद हैं। मेरे से डयूटी के दौरान टेलिफोन बिलो के डिस्पैच का कार्य भी लिया गया था जो डिस्पैच रजिस्टर की फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 5 है , जिस पर कई स्थानों पर मेरे हस्ताक्षर हैं । जिरह मे उसने स्पष्ट कहा है कि उसे स्वयं के अलावा भगवान सिंह , हुकम सिंह, जितेन्द्र सिंह , दौलत सिंह , सुरेन्द्र सिंह कालू, नरेन्द्र सिंह आदि के नाम से वेतन का भुगतान होता था , किन्तु यह याद नहीं कि उपरोक्त नामो से कब - कब वेतन भुगतान किया व इन नामों से कितनी बार

2324 G1/07-14 3218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

को भी जोड़ा जाये तो 240 दिन से अधिक का कार्य हो जाना पाया जाता है। इस सम्बन्ध में कोई विवाद नहीं है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक एक दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक था व नियमित प्रक्रिया अपनाकर उसकी नियुक्तिनहीं की गयी थी । इस सम्बन्ध में भी कोई विवाद नहीं है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक को सेवामुक्ति के पूर्व कोई नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा नही दिया गया और धारा 25 एफ अधिनियम की पालना नहीं की गयी। अतः अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक को दी गयी सेवामुक्ति अनुचित एवं अवैध होना पाया जाता है ।

14. प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने अपनी साक्ष्य में एक अन्य व्यक्ति लक्ष्मण सिंह के पक्ष में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्यौगिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर द्वारा पारित पंचाट दिनांकित 19-10-2001 की फोटोप्रति प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 6 के रूप में प्रस्तुत की है जिसके अवलोकन से यह पाया जाता है कि न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा उक्त व्यक्ति को काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछली कोई मजदूरी नहीं दिलवायी गयी है । ऐसी स्थिति में हस्तगत मामले में भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक कार्य नहीं तो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछले वेतन के रूप में कुछ भी प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां दैनिकवेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में सेवा में पुनस्थापित होने का अधिकारी घोषित होने योग्य पाया जाता है ।

परिणामतः राजस्थान सरकार , श्रम विभाग द्वारा सम्प्रेषित रेफ्रेन्स को अधिनिर्णय कर इस प्रकार उत्तरित किया जाता है कि अप्रार्थी नियोजक टेलीकॉम डिस्ट्रिक्ट इंजीनियर , टेलीकॉम डिपार्टमेन्ट, चित्तौड़गढ़/राज. द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक रतन सिंह आत्मज बाल सिंह को सेवामुक्त किया जाना अनुचित एवं अवैध है। प्रकरण के तथ्यों व समस्त परिस्थितियों को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए प्रार्थी श्रमिक काम नहीं तो वेतन नहीं सिद्धांत आधार पर पिछला कोई वेतन प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और वह अप्रार्थी नियोजक के यहां दैनिकवेतन भोगी श्रमिक के रूप में सेवा में पुनर्स्थापित होने का अधिकारी है।

के. के. गुप्ता , न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली , 23 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1452.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 / 141/ 2005- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd April, 2007 भुगतान वाऊचर्स पर भी किये हुए है । उदाहरण के लिए भुगतान वाऊचर्स प्रदर्श एम. 70 व 71 क्रमशः दि. 20-10-98 से 23-10-98 एवं 12-10-98 से 16-10-98 की अवधि के हैं जोकि प्रार्थी रतन सिंह के भुगतान से सम्बन्धित हैं जिन पर वेरीफाईड करके जेऐओटीआर के द्वारा लघु हस्ताक्षर किये हुए हैं और भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 में इसी अवधि के भुगतान के सम्बन्ध में जो इन्द्राज है , उसके अवलोकन से कॉलम न. 6 में जो लघु हस्ताक्षर जेऐओटीआर के द्वारा किये हुए हैं, वो एक ही सम्मान प्रतीत होते हैं। इसी तरह से वर्ष 98 एवं वर्ष 99 व उससे पूर्व के भी भुगतान वाऊचर्स पर वेरीफाईड एण्ड चैक्ड के जऐओटीआर के हस्ताक्षरों व प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू.। के कॉलम न. 6 में जेरीओटीआर के हस्ताक्षरों में समानता पायी जाती है। इस तरह से यह प्रतीत होता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रलेख प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. । के कॉलम न.6 में अंकित जेऐओटीआर के हस्ताक्षर और अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थी श्रमिक से संबंधित भुगतान वाउचर्स पर चैक्ड एवं वेरीफाईड के जेसे ओटीआर के हस्ताक्षर एक ही व्यक्ति के द्वारा दिये हुए हैं। यदि अप्रार्थी इन दस्तावेज को अपना होना नहीं बताता है और फरजी होना कहता है तो जेऐओटीआर जिसने कि भुगतान वाऊचर्स पर चैक्ड एवं वेरीफाईड के हस्ताक्षर किये हैं , उसे साक्ष्य में प्रस्तुत कर प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 के कॉलम नं. 6 के हस्ताक्षरों को उसका होने से इनकार करा सकता था, किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने ऐसा नहीं किया है । ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी श्रमिक की इस साक्ष्य पर कि प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 के कॉलम नं. 6 पर अप्रार्थी के जेऐओटीआर के हस्ताक्षर है , अविश्वास किये जाने का कोई कारण नहीं है । अप्रार्थी का यह कथन कि प्रार्थी रतनसिंह ने भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डबल्यू. 1 के कॉलम नं. 7 पर सभी हस्ताक्षर बाद में कर दिये हैं , सही होना नहीं माना जा सकता है। प्रार्थी श्रमिक का यह कथन कि उसने भगवानसिंह व कालूसिंह आदि के नाम से कार्य करके भुगतान प्राप्त किया है और वास्तव में उसी ने कार्य किया है, प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू.। के कॉलम न. 7 में भुगतान न प्राप्ति के उसके हस्ताक्षरी से साबित होता है । अप्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी रतन सिंह को भुगतान किये गये वाऊचरर्स की फोटोप्रतियां प्रस्तुत की हैं। अन्य श्रमिक भगवान सिंह , राजेन्द्र सिंह व कालू सिंह आदि को भी भुगतान वाऊचर्रा के द्वारा ही भुगतान दिया गया है , जैसा कि भुगतान रजिस्टर प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. के कॉलम न. 6 को देखने से प्रतीत होता है। यदि इन सबका भुगतान भी प्रार्थी रतन सिंह को नहीं किया गया है तो अप्रार्थी उनके वाऊचर्स को प्रस्तुत कर यह साबित कर सकता था कि इन पर रतन सिंह को हस्ताक्षर नहीं हैं , किन्तु अप्रार्थी ने उन वाऊचरर्स को न्यायाधिकरण में प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । ऐसी स्थिति में प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू. 1 भुगतान रजिस्टर में भुगतान प्राप्ति के स्थान पर प्रार्थी रतनसिंह के हस्ताक्षर होने से यह निष्कर्ष निकलता है कि उक्त नामों से प्रार्थी रतन सिंह ने ही कार्य किया है । यदि इसके विपरीत स्थिति होती तो अप्रार्थी उन वाऊचर्स को न्यायाधिकरण में साक्ष्य के रूप में प्रस्तुत कर सकता था , किन्तु उसने ऐसा नहीं किया है। इससे उसके विरुद्ध विपरीत उपधारणा बनाने का पर्याप्त आधार है ।

13. उपरोक्त विवेचन के आधार पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक के सेवामुक्तिं के पूर्ववर्ती वर्ष के कार्यविधि में भगवानसिंह के नाम के कार्यदिवसों

S.O. 1452. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 123/ 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 management of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bank ofBaroda and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007.

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

3219 constitutes "Gross Misconduct " under clause 19.5 (j ) of theBPS , 1966.

[No. L- 12011/141/2005- 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. 123/2005

PresidingOfficer : R. N. Rai

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Ram Chand,

C/ o. The General Secretary, Bank of Baroda Employees Union, C/o . BOB , 4824/24 , Ansari Road, Daryaganj , New Delhi - 110002 .

Versus

The General Manager ,

Bank of Baroda, DMR- I , (Northern Zone), 12th Floor, BOB Building, 16, SansadMarg, New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12011/ 141/ 2005 - IR (B - II ) Central Government Dtd. 07-11-2005 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action taken by the DGM, DMR - I Bank of Baroda, New Delhi in reducing the pay by four stages of Shri Ram Chand, Peon is just, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ."

The case of the workman is that the workman Shri Ram Chand is a permanent employee of the bank and at present posted as Sub - staff at K.G. Road, New Delhi branch of the bank. Shri Ram Chand is a member of Bank of Baroda Employees Union, Delhi . The union is registered with Registrar of Trade Union, Delhi under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 .

That the workman was issued a chargesheet dated 12-02-2002 by the Chief Manager Service Branch, NewDelhi . The chargesheet contained the following allegations .

1. By remaining unauthorized absence on loss of pay intermittently for the period as mentioned above and not obeying instructions for reporting duty, you have shown willful insubordination and disobedience of lawful instructions of the bank , which constitutes "Gross Misconduct" under clause 19.5 (e) of the BPS, 1966 .

2. By remaining unauthorized absence the business of the branch has affected adversely. As such you have committed acts prejudicial to the interests ofthe bankwhich 3. By remaining absent without leave as mentioned above you have committed acts which constitutes "Minor Misconduct" under clause 19.7 (a) of the BPS, 1966.

4. Your attendance has been found irregular and unpunctual which constitutes "Minor Misconduct" under clause 19.7 (b) of the BPS, 1966 .

That the workman Ram Chand was working as Peon at service branch, New Delhi during the relevant period. The workman was awarded multiple punishments vide order dated 31-01-2003 for a single incident of alleged unauthorized absence . The multiple punishments imposed i.e. censures-twice and reduction to lower stage in the scale of payby two stages with cumulative effect- twice , bythe management is illegal , invalid and unsustainable in law.

That the workman was issued chargesheet dated 12-02-2002 by the D.A. alleging absene ofduty from 1264 days up to 31-12-1999 and this charge is too vague . The workman had been working and availed leave till 31-12-1999 and therefore there was no question of any unauthorized, absence , as the workman has rendered more than 27 years of service with the bank . The bank management cannot level such an allegation as unauthorized absence that too without any material particulars at this belated stage . Such a stale allegation is indicative of predetermined mind of the management to punish the workman:

That the bank has further alleged that the workman was unauthorizedly absent from duty from 07-12-2001 to 31-01-2002 for 55 days . In fact the workman was sick and submitted medical certificate to the bank and the bank authorities allowed the workman to join duty being satisfied with the certificate . Not only that there was no unauthorized absence. The bank never rejected the leave applications/ medical certificate . For a short period of one or two days the workman used to inform over phone of his being not well and his inability to attend duty. These things have been completely ignored by the bank. Hence the very disciplinary action initiated against the workman is illegal and invalid .

That four charges have been levelled in the charge sheet for a single incident of alleged unauthorized absence . The alleged misconduct is unauthorized absence but the bank management deliberately split the charge and made outdifferent misconducts which is illegal and indicative of predetermined mind and oblique motive . The chargesheet itself is not sustainable in there being no misconduct of unauthorized absence and being tainted with official bias and oblique motive .

The case of the management is that the workman Ram Chand was befittingly and validly punished for proved acts ofmisconduct i.e. for unauthorized absence fromduty 3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

without any prior permission or leave of absence from and intimation to the competent authority . The union's contentions to the contrary are unfounded, misconceived and meriless and therefore , the same are untenable in law . The punishment has been awarded after holding proper , fair and legal inquiry as per provisions of BPS and service conditions which are applicable to award staff and the principles of natural justice have been strictly adhered to . Further punishment is also proportionate for the proved gross misconduct.

No leave is permissible to an employce unless the same is sanctioned by the competent authority . The workman has remained away from the branch without prior sanction. The contention of the union that leave shouldbe sanctioned or presumed to be sanctioned simply because the workınanhad submitted any medical certificate is wrong as the leave has to be sanctioned by the competent authority subject to the satisfaction about the genuineness of the certificate/ reasons given by the workman . The track record of the workman in this regard was abysmally poor . The workman was given number of opportunities to show improvement in his work and conduct in the past before initiating inquiry against him but he continued to remain rigid and adamant in his behaviour without any improvement .

That the findings rendered by the inquiry officer were based on evidence of record and the punishment imposed on the workman was just, proper and fair too lenient than what the workman deserved . The union's contentions to the contrary are frivolous and bereft of any substance and merit. The submission made by the workman had been taken into cognizance during the inquiry proceedings and theworkman was also given a chance as per the provisions of the BPS to submit his representation on the inquiry officerfindings.

Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that the workman is not turning up from 23-11-2006. The Authorized Representative of the workman stated on 11-04-2007 that the workman has expired and his legal heirs could not be traced. It was stated that the case may be closed.

The workman has not filed affidavit in evidence . The claim is not proved.

The reference is replied thus : ---

The action taken by the DGM , DMR - I Bank of Baroda, New Delhi in reducing the pay by four stages of Shri Ram Chand, Peon is just, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 18-04-2007.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल , 2007

काआ. 1453.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच ,

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/118 /2003- आई. आर ( बी- II ) ]

राजिन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 23rd April, 2007

S.O. 1453. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 132 / 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 20-4-2007 .

[No. L - 12012/ 118 /2003 - IR( B -II) ]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai

I. D. No. 132/2003 PRESENT : Sh.Hari Kapoor

Sh . B. K. Pal

-1stParty -2nd Party IN THE MATTER OF :---

Shri Shail Singh Rana ,

Vill& Post: Dayalpur , Faridabad ( Haryana) .

Versus

The Regional Manager , SyndicateBank , 48, Bhadana Bhawan , Neelam Bata Road , Faridabad(Haryana) .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 118/2003 - IR (B - II ) Central Government Dtd. 09-09-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in ordering dismissal of Shri Shail Singh Rana , Attender from service w.e.f. 26-04-2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled."

Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that the fairness of the inquiry has been decided as preliminary issue vide order dated 5-3-2007 . The inquiry has been found valid and fair . This order will form part of the award.

Heard arguments from both the sides on the quantum ofpunishment.

3221

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

long tenure of 20 years . He has been serving the management diligently and satisfactorily . This issue has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority while awarding the punishment of dismissal . The dismissal order should be converted into order of compulsory retirement and the workman is entitled to get all the retiral benefits just as Gratuity, Pension etc.

The reference is replied thus:

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman applicant that there are mitigating circumstances also which require reduction of the sentence keeping in view the past conduct due to which the management has awarded letters ofappreciation , certificate of merit, certificate of honour dated 7-12-1989 , 25-08-1993, 8-10-1997 , 28-2-1997 , 14-11-1987 , 13-11-1987 , 10-11-1999, 23-10-1998 & 1986 copies ofwhich are already filed and exhibited as Ex . WW1/ 7 to Ex . WW1 /9 .

The action of the management of Syndicate Bank in ordering dismissal of Shri Shail Singh Rana, Attender from service w.e.f. 26-4-2001 is neither just nor legal . The workman is entitled to be treated as compulsory retired and he is also entitled to retiral benefits just as Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment etc.

It was further submitted that the management has taken the letter dated 28-7-2002 ( MEX - 2 ) even prior to initiation of action against the workman at a time when the workman concerned was very much depressed due to death of his wife at night of 24-07-2000 about which the management has due knowledge .

Date: 17-04-2007.

The award is given accordingly. R. N. RAL, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल, 2007 It has been held in (1982) 3 SCC 346 Ramakant Mishra's case that penalty of dismissal on account of misconduct must be proportionate to the misconduct and the fact of the circumstances of the case and must justify the dismissal . The punishment of dismissal for using indiscreet , indecent or threatening language to the superiors only once in the course of long unblemished service was held disproportionately excessive .

का.आ. 1454.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न. 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

It has been further held in ( 1984) 2. SCC 569 that the award of extreme penalty of dismissal against the workman on a not so serious charge of misconduct with referenceto the facts of the case is found disproportionately excessive. It can be set aside by the Tribunal .

[सं. एल-12012/19/2003- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्रकुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007 The workman no doubt has used abusive and threatening language . He was in a drunken state but this sad incident has happened after a long tenure of 20 years of service as adverted to above . The workman has been given several appreciation letters regarding his work and conduct . He has previously discharged his duties very satisfactorily and no incident of misconduct has been referred to in this case .

S.O. 1454. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.86/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 20-4-2007.

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in ( 1998) 3 SCC 192 that while awarding the major punishment of dismissal the past record of the delinquent must be considered.

[No. L- 12012/19 /2003 - IR(B - II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL Ithas been held in (1982) 3 SCC that punishment of dismissal is disproportionately excessive in case the misconduct has occurred only once in the course of long unblemished service .

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI

I. D. No. 86/2003

Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai PRESENT: Sh. R. K. Sharma

.... 1stParty .... 2nd Party

Sh. Rajat Arora

In The Matter of:-

Shri C. P. Narula, D-290, Sector : 11 , Faridabad (Haryana).

Versus

In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman has no doubt used indiscreet, indecent and threatening language but this incident has occurred after 20 years of long unblemished service of the workman . The mitigating circumstance is that his wife was dead at that time and the workman was disturbed. In view ofthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court adverted to above the workman deserve sympathetic consideration .

TheManager, Bank ofIndia, Akash Theatre , Mohan Road, Ballabhgarh (Faridabad)

In the facts and circumstances of the case it is expedient in the interest of justice that the dismissal order dated 26-4-2001 should be set aside as it is excessive . The workman has committed only this misconduct during over 3222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/ VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

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

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/19/ 2003 - IR (B - II) Central Government Dt. 19-5-2003 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing Shri C.P. Narula, S/o . Shri Bahadur Chand, Clerk from service w.e.f. 30-8-2001 is just and legal? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ."

an appeal against the order of dismissal by the Appellate Authority it has been mentioned in the order dated 27-11-2001 of Appellate Authority that his subsistence allowance was paid to the claimant but statutory deductions were made from the subsistence allowance . In fact, no subsistence allowance was ever paid to the claimant and when he was not paid any subsistence allowance in actual the inquiry is liable to be vitiated. The purpose of the subsistence allowance is that during the time of difficulty the claimant as well as his family can take shoulder together. By not paying the subsistence allowance , the purpose of the subsistence allowance was totally vitiated by the management . Inquiry is liable to be vitiated on the ground ofnon-payment of subsistence allowance . The total amount ofsubsistence allowance was unilaterally adjusted against the loans.

That the inquiry report was not based on any evidence and Inquiry Officer was totally biased and was joining hands with the bank in order to get the claimant punished.

The workman applicant has filed statement ofclaim . In the statement of claim it has been stated that the above noted claimant was appointed by the management as a Clerk with effect from 11-2-1984. There he performed his duties deligently and honestly. He was trapped in a false case. He was served upon a chargesheet and the inquiry was conducted. The inquiry was totally an eye- wash. After that his services were dismissed with effect from 30-08-2001 against which he had filed an appeal before the AppellateAuthority but the appeal was also rejected vide order dated27-11-2001 by the Appellate Authority.

That the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority has failed to appreciate that none of the charges levelled against the claimant was ever proved .

Thatthe order of dismissal is also absolutely illegal and not based on any evidence . It is result of totally biased mind.

That while passing the impugned order , the Disciplinary Authority has totally over - looked the matter of irregularities and illegality committed by the Inquiry Officer. Duringthe inquiry the workman had raised several objections from time to time regarding the biased manner adopted by the Inquiry Officer . His attitude was totally discriminatory

That the disciplinary as well as appellate authority has further failed to appreciate that chargesheet was issued to the claimant only in order to make the claimant a escape goat and to save the real culprit . The claimant was not guilty of any charges leveled against him . The disciplinary as well the appellate authority had not taken into consideration any objection taken by the workman -claimant regarding the inquiry proceedings . The services of the workman have been terminated wrongly and illegally .His last drawn wages were Rs . 13500 per month .

Itis, therefore, prayed that the workman may kindly be reinstated with full back wages , continuity of service and all other benefits attached to their service .

That during the inquiry proceedings , Inquiry Officer did not allow the representative of the claimant to cross- examine the witnesses produced by the bank and further the Inquiry Officer did not permit the workman to produce hiswitness in defence . The inquiry was conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice as well as statutory rules of the bank .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that Shri C.P. Narula was a staff Clerk in the Ballabhgarh Branch of the management bank and he was issued a chargesheet dated 15-1-2001 . It was alleged in the chargesheet issued to him thatwhile working as a Clerk in the BO of Bank at Faridabad and Ballabhgarh, he as the President of Bank of India Non- agriculatural ( SE) Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Faridabad had induced various persons by luring them with higher rate of interest and diverted the customers to deposit in the said account which was detrimental to the interest of the bank . The claimant was , therefore , issued a chargesheet as per clause 19.5(j ) of the BPS. Thereafter a departmental inquiry was instituted against him wherein theprinciple ofnatural justice was followed and the Inquiry Officer, vide his report dated 24-7-2001 had held the charges levelled against the claimant in the chargesheet as proved.

That the order of dismissal of the workman is also liable to be set aside on the ground of discrimination as well . Shri Sultan Singh , Clerk posted at Faridabad Branch who was chargesheeted on the same charges like the workman has been reinstated whose inquiry was conducted by Shri Jog Kalra. One Shri N.K. Sharma, Clerk ( Secretary of the Society) was also issued chargesheet containing the similar charges like the workman as well Shri N.K. Sharma has not been dismissed but he was given compulsory retirement . The workman was only singled out to be punished by way of dismissal . However, the departmental inquiry is liable to be vitiated on the ground that he was not paid any subsistence allowance at all during the pendency of the departmental inquiry and therefore , as perthe settled proposition of law, the departmental inquiry into the charges leveled against the workman is liable to be vitiated/set aside . However, when the workman preferred

That in pursuance to the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a show cause punishment notice was issued to the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3223

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

claimant on 20-8-2001 . A personal hearing was given to him on 29-8-2001 in which the claimant had participated. The claimant has also preferred an appeal before the AppellateAuthority. It also give a personal hearing to him on 19-11-2001 and vide its order dated 27-11-2001 rejected the said appeal and upheld the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the claimant by the Disciplinary Authority . The management submits that the bank is a financial institution dealing in public money and does not keep in employment personssons like the claimant who for his own personal vested interest indulged in the acts of omission and commission and induced the customers/public to put their deposit in specific account. The Hon'ble Tribunal maydecide about the validity of the departmental inquiry as a preliminary issue .

That it is a matter of record that the claimant had joined the work on 11-2-1984 . However , it is wrong and vehementlydenied that the claimant was diligent and honest inhis work . The claimant was issued a chargesheet dated 15-1-2001 for the acts of omission and commission mentioned therein and in pursuance to the said chargesheet, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 30-8-2001 had imposed the punishment of dismissal from bank's service upon the claimant. The appeal preferred by the claimant was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority as matter of record.

That the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the claimant is perfectly legal and just and is based upon the evidence before the Inquiry Officer , which has been considered and confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority.

the similar charges against Shri Sultan Singh and Shri N.K. Sharma are entirely distinct and different . In fact Shri N.K. Sharma was given the punishment of compulsory retirement. It has been proved in the inquiry that Shri Narula was responsible for luring the depositors to deposit their amount in the Credit Society with higher rate of interest when they had come to deposit the said amount with the bank and thereafter depositing the amount in the credit society they were given impression that their amounts are deposited in the bank only . Almost all the management witnesses i.e. MW- 1 to MW -20 have clearly stated in the inquiry that whosoever signed the FDRs issued to them should be held responsible for the money which they had deposited in the society within banking hours when they have no intention to deposit the money in the society . Theyhave further stated that Shri Narula was responsible for luring them to deposit their money in the credit society withhigher rate of interest when they had come to deposit money with the bank and that after depositing the said amount in the credit society they were given impression that their amounts are deposited with the bank only . The said oral deposition of witnesses read with the documentary evidence in the form of various deposit receipts issued by the workman as President singly and along with other office bearers clearly goes to prove that the entire charge against him of inducing the depositors to depositmoney in the society and diverting the bank's funds to that extent to the society stands proved . The workman soclicited public deposits mostly from bank's depositors offering them higher rate of interest. The management witness has deposed that the funds of the society have been embezzeled owing to which the society could not pay its liability . As such malafide on the part of the workman has been established in the inquiry .

It is wrong and denied that the Inquiry Officer had beenconducted in a just and fair manner and in accordance withthe principles of natural justice . All fair and reasonable opportunities were given to the claimant in the departmental proceedings .

Itisalsowrong on the part of the workman to contend that he was not paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of departmental inquiry because bank's record indicates that subsistence allowance was being paid to him regularly by the Manager, Ballabghgarh Branch . However, statutory deductions were made from the subsistence allowance as per the rules for the time being in force. The contention of claimant is totally wrong and baseless to the effect that inquiry is liable to be vitiated on the ground of non - payment of subsistence allowance .

Thatas is evident from the inquiry proceedings , the workman was given adequate opportunity to defend his caseby having access to the entire documentary evidence as well to cross examine the bank's witnesses and to submit his own oral and documentary evidence in his defence . It will be seen from the inquiry proceedings that he did not participate in the inquiry and remained absent despite having been sent notices beforehand . The claimant was also provided copy of the inquiry proceedings and all possible opportunities were given to him during the inquiry proceedings to defend his case .

That the inquiry is based upon the evidence before the Inquiry Officer and is legal and just . The inquiry was held in consonance with the principles of natural justice . The claimant was given adequate opportunity to defend his case by having access to the entire documentary evidence as well as to cross examine bank's witnesses and to submit his own defence , oral as well as documentary.

It is stated that there has been no discrimination against the workman as has been alleged. The gravity of the misconduct committed and proved against Shri Sultan Singh as well as Shri N.K. Sharma, Staff Clerk is different anddistinctfrom the gravity of misconduct committedby the claimant, more particularly keeping in view the degree of his involvement in respect of the allegations substantiated against him in the inquiry . The contention thatthe order of dismissal is liable to be set aside because

That the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have rightly appreciated the evidence before them and the punishment of dismissal from bank's service has been passed after due application of mind.

3224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

any witness in defence and thereafter the inquiry was closed and was concluded .

That the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the charges and the findings of the Inquiry Officer . The last drawn wages of the workman was Rs . 6691.19 as sub.

Itwas further submitted that he was paid subsistence allowance and it was transferred to his loan account and installments of loan were deducted from his subsistence allowance.

It is, therefore , most respectfully prayed that the present claim may be answered in favour of the management and against the claimant. However, in case the Hon'ble Tribunal/Court feels that the inquiry is vitiated on any groundwhatsoever, the management may be given further opportunity to prove the charges levelled against the claimant.

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

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that the Disciplinary Authority has totally overlooked the inregularities and illegalities committed by the InquiryOfficer . The workman raised several objections regarding the biased manner adopted by the Inquiry Officer .

Itwas further submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not allow the representative of the claimant to cross- examine the witnesses produced by the bank . The Inquiry Officerdid not permit the workman to produce his defence evidence .

From perusal of the inquiry report it becomes quite obvious that the management has examined 19 witnesses . All these witnesses had deposited their amount in the Society and the amount has been embezzeled and no payment has been made to them . The case of the management is that the workman was posted as Clerk in the bank but he was the President of the Society and Shri N. K. Sharma was the Secretary of the Society . Shri Sultan Singh was Clerk posted in that Branch. All the three employees have been chargesheeted. This workman was the President of the Non- agriculatural (SE) for Thrift & CreditSociety Limited. As a President he induced various persons by luring with higher rate of interest and diverted the customers to deposit in the said account . It was detrimental to the interest of the bank . The depositors went to deposit the money in the bank but the workman as President of the Society lured them to deposit the amount in the Society and in case they do so they would get a higher rate of interest . Thus , he persuaded the customers of the bank to deposit the amount in the account of Non- agriculatural Thrift and Credit Society Limited. The workman as Prsident of the Society issued deposit receipts of the money deposited by the customers . The amounts so deposited were embezzeled and the account holders could not get back their amount with interest or even bare amount .

Itwas further submitted that Shri Sultan Singh , Clerk and Shri N.K. Sharma, Secretary of the Society were issued chargesheet pending the similar charges but the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on them whereas this workman has been punished .

It was further submitted that during the course of

inquiry and prior to that the claimant was not paid the subsistence allowance . For non -payment of the subsistence allowance the inquiry stands vitiated .

It was further submitted that a complaint to the bank regarding embezzlement of the amount and it was found that the three officials of the bank were instrumental in persuading the customers to deposit their money in the Society and not in the bank. The customers were lured and deposited their money in the account of the society but their entire amount was embezzeled . The workman was the President of the Society and Shri N.K. Sharma was the Secretary of the Society.

Itwas further submitted that the workman was not provided the list of witnesses prior to the inquiry so he could not cross examine the witnesses .

Itwas submitted from the side of the bank that the workman himself showed reluctance to cross - examine the witnesses . He was not ready to face their fury, so he absented himself on the dates of their examination in chief.

It was further submitted that its stands proved from theperusal of the findings of the Inquiry Officer that all the witnesses have deposed that they deposited their amount in the said Society being persuaded by the Secretary of the Society, Shri N.K. Sharma and the President of the Society the workman. The workman was an employee of the bank and he was the President of the said Society.

Itwas further submitted that the workman inspected the documents of the inquiry proceedings so ; he had knowledge of the list of the witnesses though the same was not handed over to him.

It was submitted that the bank is a financial institution. It deals with public money. The workman was paid by the bank for the work of the bank but he had vested interest in the Society, so he indulged in the acts ofomission and commission and induced the customers and the public who went to deposit their amount in the bank to deposit the same in the specific account of the Society. So the workman acted as an agent of the Society and he issued deposit receipts in his own handwriting.

Itwas further submitted that the workman absented himself from the inquiry proceedings deliberately. The inquiry proceeded ex -parte and after the conclusion of the evidence of the management , notice for producing evidence in defence was given to him . The workman did not produce 3225

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

It was further submitted that all the witnesses from MW -1 to MW-20 have clearly deposed that who over signed the FDRs issued to them should be held responsible for the money which they had deposited in the Society within the bank hours when they have no intention to deposit the money in the Society. They have also stated that Shri Narula, the workman was specifically responsible forluring them to deposit their money in the Credit Society whereas they went to deposit the money in the bank and they deposited their money under the impression that their amount were deposited in the bank only as receipts were issued to them by the workman , Shri Narula , the President ofthe Society and Shri N.K. Sharma, Clerk of the Society.

The workman has admitted that he inspected the documents of the inquiry proceedings . He must have seen the names of the witnesses . He has received the charges . The charges have been leveled against him against the embezzlement of the amount of different customers . All the persons involved in deposting their money in the Society at the instance of the workman have been examined by the management in the course of the inquiry. It is true that the persons would become furious as their amounts have been embezzeled due to unfair activities of the workman . It was he, who induced them to deposit the amounts in the Society whereas they have gone to deposit the same in the bank. All such customers of the Society have appeared in the inquiry proceedings and they have deposed that they were inducedby the workman , Shri Narula to deposit their money in the said Society and subsequently their money was embezzled .

Itwas submitted that the workman being President of the Society has a major role to play and he diverted the bank's funds to the said Society . The workman solicited/ deposits mostly from the bank's depositors by mis -guiding them that they they would get higher rate of interest and their entire amount were embezzeled .

So far as the question of providing the Defence Representative is concerned the workman has every right to choose a Defence Representative of his own choice but it is not necessary that the bank would permit any person as Defence Representative of the workman . The workman was presented by Shri B.K. Sharma as his Defence Representative . The workman has admitted this fact so he was provided with a Defence Representative . The Bank did not permit him to engage Shri Vinod Kumar as his Defence Representative as he was not eligible as Defence Representative in the eyes of the bank. So no prejudice has been caused to the workman . He has been provided Defence, Representative .

It further becomes obvious from perusal of the records that the workman knew that the proceedings will continue day today. Having knowledge of the proceedings he withdrew himself from the prceedings and he was given documents regarding the evidence of the different witnesses but he dared not to cross - examine the witnesses . Thus , he was given fair opportunity of cross - examination and to produce his own evidence but he withdrew himself from the inquiry proceedings deliberately . The workman cannot, thereafter allege that he was not given sufficient opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses . The inquiry report shows that he has been given sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witnesses . He did . not cross - examine them. No prejudice has been caused to him even by non- disclosing the names of the witnesses . Adequate opportunity for adducing evidence has been given.

The subsistence allowance has been paid to the workman, though it has been adjusted against his loan amount . The workman did want that subsistence allowance to be transferred to his loan account. No prejudice has been caused to the workman by non - payment of the subsistence allowance to him directly . His wife is also an earning member . He resides in Faridabad (Haryana ) where the inquiry was held , so it cannot be said that he was penalized and he was not in a position to attend the inquiry proceedings .

It has been held in (2007) 2 SCC 433 and 2005 SCC (L& S) 567 that in a financial institution like Bank high degree ofdevotation and trust is required by the employees ofthe bank . The workman induced the borrowers to deposit their funds in the Society of which the workman was President and the depositors have not got back their money. The depositors have deposed in the inquiry regarding the involvement of the workman, Shri Narula . He has been given adequate opportunity to cross -exmine the witnesses . It appears that the workman intended to withdraw himself from the inquiry proceedings deliberately. Principles of natural justice have been followed. The inquiry does not stand vitiated . The workman applicant, Shri Narual is not entitled to get any relief.

The workman has failed to establish that any prejudice was caused to him . Non - payment of the subsistence allowance cannot be ipso - facto , a ground to vitiate the proceedings .

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing Shri C.P. Narula, S/o. Shri Bahadur Chand, Clerk from service w.e.f. 30-8-2001 is just and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

The award is given accordingly .

Date: 17-04-2007 .

The workman has to prove as to under what circumstances he was handicapped because of non- receipt of the subsistence allowance . The workman has failed to do so and it is admitted case that his wife was also an earning member and he has not stated anywhere that he had no money to attend the inquiry proceedings . The laws citedby the workman applicant are not relevant in view of 2004 see (L& S ) 176 .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer 2324 G1 /07-15 3226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल , 2007

In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 1 of Sec. 10 (d) read with Sec . 7 and sub - sec . 2 (c) of Sec . 10(d) ofthe Industrial Disputes Actby Central Govt . under the Secretary of the Central Govt . has referred the following dispute to the undersigned for adjudication .

का.अ. 1455.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र कि सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The dispute referred by the Central Govt . is reproduced as under :

[सं . एल-12012/47/2004- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing the service of Sh. Govind Narayan Patil, Sepoy, Fergusson Road Branch , Pune without notice w.e.f. 29-5-2003 on the alleged charges of misconduct levelled against him vide chargesheet dt. 12-11-2002 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief is the concerned workman entitled to ? " S.O. 1455. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 33/2004) of the Industrial Tribunal , Pune ( Maharashtra) asshown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 20-4-2007 .

3. After the receipt of the reference , notices were issued to First Party and Second Party . The Second Party hasfiled his Statement of Claim at Exhibit U - 6 whereas First Party has filed its Written Statement at Exhibit C-3 .

[No. L- 12012/47 /2004- IR(B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Reference ( IT) No. 33/2004

BETWEEN:

1. The Chief Manager, Bank of India, Fergusson Road Branch & Disciplinary Authority, 1201/C /A, Shivajinagar , Pune -411004

2. Asstt . General Manager , Pune Zone & Appellate Authority, 1162/6, Shivajinagar , Ganeshkhind Road, Pune -411005

FirstParty

AND

4. The Second Party was in the employment of the First Party as Peon/Sepoy since 1-7-1985 . Initially , the Second Party was given employment on daily wage basis and he was made permanent in 1989. The Second Party wasgiven employment in the reserve quota for handicap person and as per the directions of Social Welfare Deptt . of the Govt . , the Second Party was accommodated as daily wages employee . It is the contention of the Second Party that, even though he was given permanency and though he was required to do additional work that of Daftary and Bill Collector , he was not paid additional allowance by the Firstparty. According to the Second Party , the officers of the First Party who were basically annoyed because of the employment of the Second Party in reserved quota have got annoyed and they were looking for an opportunity to make the Second Party scape goat . The Chief Manager of the First Party of Fergusson Road branch is appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director . The appointment of Shri . Hanmantrao Pandit as Enquiry Officer of the Second Party was under the signature of Chief Manager and opportunity was not given to the Second Party to reply said show - cause notice . On 12-11-02, the Second Party was served with a chargesheet and misconduct was levelled against the Second Party under Clause 5(j ) of the bipartite settlementdt. 10-4-02 . in all 3 charges were levelled against the Second Party. It is alleged against the Second Party Shri Govind N. Patil, R/ at22/88 , Maharashtra Housing Board, Yerawada , Pune-411006

Second Party

Inthe matter of : Reference U/ s . 10 of the I.D. Act .

APPEARANCES :

Shri Khandekar , Advocate for the First Party

Shri . C.D. Konale , Advocate for the Second Party

that , he has reimbursed the medical expenses in the name of his wife Mrs Geetanjali , son Gaurav showing them dependent on Second Party. It is also alleged against the Second Party that , he has committed over - writing and erasers in the loan application form he has submitted to Bank of India Staff Co - operative Credit Society with dishonest intention . It is also alleged against the Second Party that , he has claimed leave fare concession in the [भाग 11- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

3227 name of his son-Gaurav and daughter- Tejashree showing them as his dependent and have reason tobelieve that, it is a false claim . The Enquiry Officer Shri Hanumantrao Panditrao recorded the statement of in all 6 witnesses before me . He also recorded the defence statement of the Second Party and while submitting his report on 27-3-03 , he has held Second Party guilty for the misconduct under Clause 5(j ) of the Bipartite Settlementdt . 10-4-2002.

contended that , the Statement of Claim made by the Second Party is false, frivolous and not based on true facts . The First Party denies all adverse allegations made by the Second Party . While denying the appointment of the Second Party on temporary basis since 1985, the First Party submits that , the Second Party was given appointment as Sepoy/Hamalw.e.f. 9-5-1989 and thereafter , he was given permanency. The First Party submits that , since the beginning the service record of the Second Party was far away from satisfaction. In the year 1993 , a chargesheet wasissued to the Second Party and he was given warning . On27-6-2000 another chargesheet was issued to the Second Party as he was indulging in money lending business .

5. It is the contention of the Second Party that the Enquiry Officer who has conducted the enquiry is one of the staff member and the enquiry conducted by him is of utter disregard of the principles of natural justice . According to the Second Party he was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation to the chargesheet and was also not allowed to lead documentary evidence . Inspite of his objection raised by him before the Enquiry Officer, same was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and the act of the Enquiry Officer against was bias . The Enquiry Officer while holding him guilty for clause 5(j ) of bipartite settlement did not give detail reason and therefore , the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse .

10. While justifying the chargesheet issued to the Second Partydt . 12-11-02 , the First Party submits that , the Second Party has committed grave and serious misconduct of reimbursing the medical claim of his 2nd wife and illigitimate children. He has also made false claim of new Leave Fare Concession of his 2nd wife and also made erasers and over- writing in loan application form submitted by him in Bank of India Credit Co -operative Society. Because of the above referred serious and grave misconduct on the partofthe Second Party , he was issued show cause notice and was subsequently served with a chargesheet.

6. While justifying the medical reimbursement to wifeGeetanjali and son Gaurav , the Second Party submits that, his wife Geetanjali is handicap . She cannot walk without crunches . She also could not conceive any child and therefore, with the consent of Geetanjali , the Second Party has solemnized his 2nd marriage with one Prema Mavale on 2-6-1990 . Said Prema Mavale alias Gauri was residing jointly with Second Party and with Geetanjali . To the knowledge ofGeetanjali , the 2nd wife Gauri gave birth to two children namely Gaurav and Tejashree . Till 1999 everything was going well . However , in the year 1999 the first wife of Second Party started not feeling well with the Second Party therefore , she made false report against the Second Party . With the result , the chargesheet dt . 12-11-2002 came to be issued to the Second party .

11. While justifying the enquiry initiated against the Second Party, the First Party submits that , the allegations were explained to the Second Party. He was also given opportunity to appoint defence counsel . The Second Party wasgiven an opportunity to participate in the enquiry . The defence representative of the Second Party was given full opportunity to cross - examine the management witness . The Second Party was also given an opportunity to adduce defence witness and only thereafter, the enquiry was concluded against the Second Party.According to the First Party, even then, before holding the Second Party guilty, opportunity of personal hearing was given to the Second Party, even after holding the Second Party guilty and after awarding punishment . While giving an opportunity of file appeal , personal hearing was given to the Second Party and therefore , by any stretch of imagination , it cannot be said that the enquiry was not initiated against the Second Party by following the principles of natural justice .

7. While justifying the loan application submitted by the Second Party , to the above reference Credit Co- operative Society, while denying the erasers and over- writting, the Second Party states that, it is the officers of the First Party has made endorsement about the non- availment ofO.D. by the Second Party and also put stamp . However, it is illegally alleged against the Second Party in respect of tampering of the document .

8. According to the Second Party, the Enquiry Officer aswell as the First Party has illegally held the Second Party guilty and awarded punishment of dismissal . The alleged act on the part of the First Party is an unfair labour practice under Item No. 5 (a) , (b ) , (d) and ( g ) of Schedule V. of the I.D. Act . The Second Party therefore , claims the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages .

12. The First Party categorically denies that the dismissal order issued to the Second Party is an outcome of vindictive attitude against the Second Party he being appointed in reserve quota for handicap person . The First Party submits that , the Second Party was allowed to avail all benefits . He was given special leave to participate in the national games for handicap persons . He was also given choice of posting as per his request and therefore , according to the First Party, the contention raised by the Second Party devoids any merit .

9. The First Party has resisted the claim of the Second Party by submitting the Written Statement wherein , it is

13. While justifying the punishment of dismissal in connection ofmisconduct on the part of Second Party, the 3228

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

management representative to take objection . He also submitted before me that , the Second Party was not given an opportunity to adduce the documents and to examine defence witness .

First Party submits that, the misconduct carried out by the Second Party are grave , serious in nature . According to theFirst Party, Mrs. Geetanjali Patil , wife of the Second Partyherselfmade grievance about the false claim made by theSecond Party. Moreover, the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer of Mrs. Kelshikar and Bendre sufficiently goes to show that, over- writing and erasers on loan application form is carried out by Second Party only and therefore, the First Party justifies the punishment of dismissal and prays to reject the claim .

14. On respective contentions of the parties , I have framed following issues . My findings are recorded against the same .

ISSUES

FINDINGS

: Yes

1. Whether the domestic enquiry against the Second party upon the chargesheetdt . 12-11-02 is legal , fair and proper ?

: Does not

survive

2. If not , whether the First Party provethat, misconduct of Se- cond Party before the Court ?

16. After giving conscious thought to the submissions advanced by Shri Konale , I have gone through the entire enquiry proceedings filed on record and it goes unsaying that the Second Party was allowed to engage defence representative . Shri Bhave , defence representative engaged by the Second Party was given opportunity to cross - examine the witness and the Second Party was also given an opportunity to examine defence witness . Shri Khandekar, learned Counsel for the First Party has demonstrated before me that Shri Bhave , defence representative has himself submitted before the Enquiry Officer about his closing of file . It is also submitted by Shri Khandekar that , Shri Bhave , defence representative of the Second Party had informed before the Enquiry Officer on 7-2-03 that , he does not intend to present any witness or document in defence. According to Shri Khandekar, the above referred enquiry proceeding signed by Shri Bhave unequivocally goes to show about the opportunity given to the Second Party .

: Yes

3. Does the First Party prove that hisdismissal order dt . 29-5-03 against the Second Party is legal & proper ?

: No

4. Whether the Second Party is entitled to get the relief prayed for?

5. What order ?

: As per final order.

14. REASONS : ISSUE NO. 1

Admittedly, the issue regarding fairness of enquiry was not disputed at earlier stage muchless as a preliminary issue. With the consultation of both the parties , all issues were agreed to be decided at one time . Now , it is a fact that, the First Party has examined in all 6 witnesses for proving themisconduct against the Second Party . Evenbefore the Court the First Party has examined witness Anil Belsare andMohan Bendre for proving the fairness of enquiry as well as misconduct on the part of Second Party.

17. After considering the submissions advanced by Shri Khandekar coupled with the enquiry papers filed on record, it leaves no doubt in my mind to conclude that , the Second Party was given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry . Though it has been alleged by Shri Konale that, the Enquiry Officer did not consider the admissions given by the witness , to my mind , this submission advanced byhim has not been fortified by objection application filed the Second Party then and then only before the Enquiry Officer . Therefore , the submissions advanced by Shri Konale to that effect devoids any merit . The settled position of law is that, while considering the fairness of enquiry, whatis to be considered as to whether the Enquiry Officer has followed the procedural part properly. From the bare perusal of record , I do not find any objectionable thing in the record so as to conclude the mistake or fault committed by the Enquiry Officer . To my mind, the record not only goes to show that the opportunity was given to the Second Party during the course of enquiry but , also even after declaring the punishment of dismissal , the Second Party was given opportunity to file appeal against the order of dismissal , was also given opportunity of personal hearing and therefore , by any stretch of imagination , it cannot be said that the procedural part followed by the Enquiry Officer is faulty. Therefore , I conclude that , the domestic enquiry concluded against the Second Party was fair, proper and as per the principles of natural justice . Therefore , I record my finding on Issue No. I in affirmative .

18. ISSUE NOS . 2 TO 4 :

While deciding Issue No. 1 , it has been held that , the domestic enquiry conducted against the Second Party was 15. The evidence of the Second Party is recorded before the Court and he has tried to bring on record that , the Enquiry Officer has hurriedly conducted his enquiry without giving proper opportunity to him to participate in the enquiry. While commenting upon the conduct of enquiry officer , Shri Konale , learned Counsel for the Second Party has submitted before me that whenever the witness has given vital admission in the cross -examination , same was not recordedby the Enquiry Officer and had asked the 3229 [ भाग II-खंड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

legal , fair , proper and as per the principles ofnatural justice.

In view of affirmative finding , to my mind, Issue No. 2 does not survive , because only in case of negative finding on Issue No. 1 , the question for proving the misconduct before the Court by the employer would have been arisen . However, as the enquiry against the Second Party was held to be fair and proper , it is not necessary to decide Issue No. 2 and therefore , to my mind, the issue No. 2 will have to be answered as redundant .

employer, then the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse . Keeping in mind this legal position, for the purpose of convenience , let us consider the charge in respect of over- writing and erasers carried outby the Second Party in loan application form Exh. U-30 . The material witness recorded by the First Party in connection ofExh . U-30 is Mrs. Kelshikar who was working as Chief Manager at Fergusson road branch at the relevant time of incidence . Now, it is not disputed position that , Second Party had applied for getting loan to Bank of India Staff Co- operative Credit Society . The evidence of Smt . Kelshikar before the Enquiry Officer shows that , Shri Bendre , Dy . Chief Manager (Admn .) had put remark on loan application form Exh . U- 30 as per her Say as the disciplinary action was initiated against the Second Party . Her statement before the Enquiry Officer shows that , after putting the said remark on Exh . U - 30, witness- Shri Bendre had initiated the stamp of the First Party bank . Her evidence further shows that , at the relevant time , the Second Party had requested her not to put the said stamp because it would create a obstacle for him in getting loan . Her statement before the Enquiry Officer further shows that , she had shown her inability to the Second Party to delete the said remark . This part of evidence has been fortified by the witness-Bendre before the Enquiry Officer and also before the Court .

21. There cannot be two opinion that , on perusal of Exh . U- 30 by naked eyes , there appears to be over writing and substitution of remark. The remark appears on Exh . U- 30. is that , ShriG.M. Patil has not availed O.D. facility from theBank .

22. To substantiate the said remark on Exh . U - 30 , Shri Konale , Learned Counsel for the Second Party has submitted before me that , in connection of loan application form, what is necessary is whether the Second Party has availed any over draft facility. The Second Party has applied to concerned deptt . By filing an application Exh . U- 31 and accordingly , Shri Rajiv K. had issued him the certificate about non -availment of over draft by the Second Party.Therefore , according to Shri Konale , there is no over- writing and eraser in the application form Exh . U-30 . He also submitted before me that , in connection of loan application , there is no necessity to inform about the pendency of disciplinary action . Moreover , no disciplinary actionwas pending against the Second Party at the relevant time . He also submitted before me that , the said form Exh .. U-30 was not sent to the Chemical Analyser to prove over writing and eraser on Exh . U-30 .

19. Needless to say that , alongwith the fairness of enquiry, what is necessary to consider and decide whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse . Though specific issue to that effect is not framed, the said issue canbe discussed while recording finding on Issue No. 3. It is also not disputed position that, when the enquiry against the deliquent has to be held fair and proper, while deciding the issue about perversity of finding what is material to consider is the evidence of witness recorded before the Enquiry Officer and therefore, Court is not expected to see the evidence of witness recorded before the Court as same could be considered when employer gets an opportunity to prove the misconduct of deliquent before the Court . Now, the employer gets an opportunity to prove the misconduct before the Court only when the enquiry against the deliquent is held to be without the principles of natural justice and therefore , while reiterating my submissions , I would like to submit that, the evidence of witness recorded before the Enquiry Officer will have to be considered while deciding the perversity of finding before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry papers are filed on record and on original ofwhich, it is seen that, the employer has examined in all 6 witnesses before the Enquiry Officer . Out ofthose 6 witnesses , Geetanjali Patil was the trump card of the employer . In addition to that , the employer has examined S/ Shri M.R. Bendre , Kannen , S.N. Narayankar , Smt . H.N. Kelshikar and Shri M.R. Shewale as its witnesses before the EnquiryOfficer. The evidence of Geetanjali Patil is in respect of reimbursement of medical bills and Leave Fare Concession enjoyed by the Second Party by showing witness Geetanjali Patil and children Gaurav and Tejashree as dependant on the Second Party . Whereas , other witnesses examined by the First Party is for proving over- writing and erasers carried out by the Second Party on loan application form Exh . U -30 . Exhibit U- 23 is the chargesheetdt . 12-11-02 and on plain reading of the said chargesheet , it is seen that , in all 3 charges were levelied against the Second Party . They are ( 1 ) reimbursement of medical charges of wife and children showing their dependant; (2) carrying out forgery in loan application form Exh . U -30by carrying out erasers and over - writing in the said form; and (3 ) the availment of Leave Fare Concession of children showing their dependant .

23. After giving conscious thought to the submissions advanced by Shri Konale , first of all it is significant to note that , the standard of proof required before the Enquiry Officer cannot be equated with the standard ofproof required in the criminal trial . It has to be borne in mind that , while considering the perversity of 20. The settled position of law is that , while considering the correctness of finding , when some charges are proved or when some material is established by the 3230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

does not reduce. Now, needless to say that , the alteration in loan application and substitution'of another remark, has definitely nexus with the faith of the employee in the mind ofemployer . Though Shri Konale has tried to bring on record that , the Second Party did not get the amount of loanmentioned in the application Exh . U- 30 however , even then, because of the alleged act , it definitely effects the trustworthiness of the employee and therefore , definitely it isthe misconduct on the service rules of the First Party. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that, the Enquiry Officer did not commit any error in holding the Second Party guilty for carrying out erasers and overwriting in Exh . U-30.

24. This takes me to consider the next charge against the Second Party in respect of medical reimbursement of Mrs. Geetanjali Patil who happens to be the wife of Second Party. The record shows that, the billdt. 6-3-92 and 11-10-96 are in respect of medical reimbursement of Geetanjali Patil . the medical bill dt . 11-10-96 is for Rs . 1511 and it is in respect of hospitalization of Geetanjali Patil . It is pertinent to note that, Smt . Geetanjali . Patil herselfby making complaint applicationdt. 1-4-02 and 15-2-02 had brought to the notice of First Party that , she was never admitted in thehospital and she did not take any medical treatment at Talera Accident Hospital . The Second Party has filed on record the certificate from Talera Hospital to show that , Smt . Getanjali Patil was admitted in Telera Hospital . In order to falsify the evidence of Smt . Geetanjali Patil before the Enquiry Officer , Shri Konale , learned Counsel for the Second Party has tried to bring on record that, because of the 2nd marriage of the Second Party with one Gauri Patil , Geetanjali Patil got annoyed and therefore , she filed false complaint application. It is also submitted by Shri Konale that, it is a fact that , the Second Party has contracted 2nd marriage with one Gauri Patil . However, he has submitted before me that , said marriage of Gauri Patil with the Secord Party was with the consent of Geetanjali Patil . In order to show that , Smt . Geetanjali Patil has a bias attitude against theSecond Party , it is submitted by Shri Konale that, in the year 1998 Geetanjali Patil filed divorce petition and got decree for divorce on 21-2-02 . However , the Second Party got married with Gauri Patil in the year 1990 and since then , Geetanjali Patil was staying with her state in the same house with the Second Party . Whiledeprecating the late report filed by Geetanjali Patil against the Second Party , Shri Konale , Learned Counsel for the Second Party has also relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors . [ reported in 2006(5) S.S.C. Pg . 88 ] wherein , initiation of enquiry proceeding after 6 years from the misconduct has been deprecated by the Second Party.

finding when the evidence of witness before the Enquiry Officer has to be considered , the Court must take into consideration the principles of preponderance of probabilities . The First Party is not required to prove misconduct beyond reasonable doubt . From that point of view, first of all it is significant to note that , there is absolutely no enemity brought on record between Shri Kelshikar and Bendre . Though an attempt has been made by the Second Party to show that, he has made some complaint against the officers of the Bank for not giving him allowances , even then , there is no material on record to show that, because of his allegations , Mrs. Kelshikar or Shri Bendre were adversely affected . It appears from Exh . U-30 that the applicationdt . 9-5-89 was in the handwriting of Shri Bendre which he also does not dispute . Witness-- Shri Bendre also admits the date 31-7-89 in red ink under hissignature . Now , the statement of witness Mrs. Kelshikar and Mr. Bendre shows that , in connection of said loan application Exh . U- 30, the Second Party had requested Smt . Kelshikar not to write the remark about the initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the Second Party . Now, the statement of Shri Kannel also shows that, the Second Party had approached to him in the year 2002 in connection of certificate for non - availment of O.D. facilities . From the statement of Shri Kannel, it is crystal clear that he was not aware about the remark written by Shri Bendre on application Exh . U - 30 . Though an attempt has been made by Shri Konale , learned Counsel for the Second Party that, atthe relevant time, no enquiry was pending against the Second Party. Shri Khandekar, learned Counsel for the First Party has made it clear that the initiation of enquiry cannot be equated with the domestic enquiry as initiation of enquiry includes preliminary investigation . Besides that, he has also attracted my attention on Exh . C- 17 written appology claimed by the Second Party in connection of his earlier misconduct. Exhibit C- 18 is the caution notice given to the Second Party and therefore , it cannot be said that , in past nothing was pending against the Second Party . Moreover , as earlier I have mentioned that , Mrs. Kelshikar and Shri Bendre have no enemity against the Seocnd Party to state about the remark in respect of initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the Second Party. Now, it is pertinentto note that, the First Party seems to have received the loan application form Exhibit U -30 in the year 2002 on the basis of which the matter was investigated by the First Party. From the cross-examination of Mrs. Kelshikar and Mr. Bendre before the Enquiry Officer , nothing has been brought by the defence representative to discard the evidence before the Enquiry Officer . The Enquiry Officer while holding the Second Party guilty for the misconduct oferaser and over- writing in Exhibit U - 30 ; has held that , he has considered the evidence of Smt. Kelshikar and Mr. Bendre. It is true that the Enquiry Officer did not discuss the evidence of Mrs. Kelshikar and Mr. Bendre at length. However, only on that point, the value of the evidence of

Mrs.Kelshikarand Mr. Bendre before the Enquiry Officer

25. It is also submitted by Shri Konale , learned Counsel for the Second Party that, even accepting the fact that, without giving divorce to Geetanjali Patil , the Second Party has soleminized 2nd marriage as it does not constitute } [ भाग II -खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

3231

Therefore , to my mind, even finding of Enquiry Officer in respect of Gaurav and Tejashree though does not appear to be proper as the medical reimbursement of Geetanjali Patil has been falsified by Geetanjali herself, to my mind , there is some substance in the misconduct levelled against the Second Party about medical reimbursement and therefore, the findings of Enquiry Officer to that effect cannot be said to be perverse .

misconduct under bipartite settlement . The reimbursement ofthe medical bills of Geetanjali Patil will not amount to misconduct . The submissions advanced by Shri Konale though appear to be interesting are not definitely convincing for the simple reason because there is no material brought on recordby the Second Party to show that the marital relations between the Second Party and Geetanjali Patil and between Geetanjali with her steps became strain . Petition for divorce was filed by Geetanjali Patil in 1998. Therefore , when her relations were cordial with Second Party, then she had no business to file any complaint especially when she herself had given consent for the 2nd marriage of the Second Party. It is true that, the soleminization of Second Party during the subsistence of 1stmarriage is not misconduct under bipartite settlement. However , making a false claim in respect of medical reimbursement is definitely not permissible. During the course of arguments , Shri Konale has tried to justify the medical bills which stand in the name of Geetanjali G. Patil and he has tried to submit that " G.G. " stands for Gauri Patil. However, the very certificate of Geetnjali Patil issued by Talera Hospital in the name of Geentanjali Patil if considered collectively with the statement of Geetanjali Patilbefore the enquiry officer that , she was never admitted in the said hospital if considered collectively with the fact that , the Second Party did not examine any person from the said hospital then the only inference that can be drawn that , the alleged act on the part of Second Party to get reimbursement of the medical bill of Geetanjali Patil is defiinitely objectionable .

28. This takes me to consider the last misconduct about the availment of Leave Fare Concession by the SecondParty. It is alleged against the Second party that, he had made false claim of Leave Fare Concession for Rs . 16,536 by submitting an application on 26-11-99 in respect ofGaurav and Tejashree claiming them as dependant . In this connection , on perusal of record, it is seen that , Geetanjali Patil has made complaint application Exh . U-20 on 16-11-99 stating that the Second Party while availing Leave Fare Concession had carried the 2nd wife of the Second Party and his parents as well as the children forgotten by the Second Party.from his wedlock with his 2nd wife . Shri Khandekar , Learned Counsel for the First Party has attracted my attention on the application dt. 12-4-99 submitted by the Second Party to First Party for claiming special vehicle on the ground that , he had to carry hiswife Geetanjali who is handicap and who cannot walk withoiut crunches . While deposing before the Enquiry Officer , Smt .Geetanjali Patil has stated that , she has filed application Ex . U - 21 dt . 18-11-99 and application Exh . U-20 dt. 16-11-99. It is true that, while cross -examining Geetanjali Patilbefore the Enquiry Officer , defence representative of the Second Party did not cross - examine Geetanjali Patil aboutapplication Exh . U-20 and U -21 .

26. In connection of ruling relied on by Shri Kanale , though it is true that , the misconduct of medical reimbursement of Geetanjali Patil appears to be petty old, however , admittedly it has come to the knowledge of the FirstParty because of complaint filed by Geetanjali Patil in the year 2002. Had it been the case, complaint could have been filed before long back, then it could have been said that the First Party has committed delay in taking the action . The reimbursement of medical bill ofGeetanjali Patil on the basis of complaint applicationdt . 1-4-02 and 15-2-02 is in connection of investigation carried out by the First Party in respect of overwritng and erasers in loan application form Exh . U- 30. Therefore , to my mind, ruling relied by Shri Konale cannot be made squarely applicable to the present case.

27. In conncection of medical reimbursement of Master Gaurav and Tejashree , I find much more substance in the submissions made by Shri Konale because even assuming Gaurav and Tejashree as illegitimate children , their status as dependant of the Second Party cannot be taken away. It is pertinent to note that , it is not the case of the First Party that , without spending any amount towards themedical bill of Master Gaurav and Tejashree , the Second Party has claimed the same . There is no material brought on record before the Enquiry Officer to that effect .

30. The Learned Cousel for the Second Party has submitted before me that, though the Second Party had claimed special vehicle by submitting that , his wife is physically handicap and cannot go without crunches ; even then , the Leave Fare Concession form submitted by the Second Party shows that the name ofGeetanjali Patil is not incorporated in the said form . It is true that, Shri Konale , learned Counsel for the Second Party could not give any justification about the application dt. 12-4-99 submitted by theSecond Party before the First Party for claiming special vehicle on the ground that, his wife is physically handicap. However , it is significant to note that , the charge does not state anywhere that the Second Party has claimed Leave Fare Concession of his wife Geetanjali nor does it show that the Second Party has claimed Leave Fare Concession ofhiswife by projecting her as the first wife of the Second Party . In fact , the charge in respect of Leave Fare Concession does not state even remotely that the Second Partyhas claimed Leave Fare Concession of Geetanjali Patil. In connection of charge No. 2 , I had discussed and held that, even assuming for the sake of arguments that, the 2nd marriage of the Second Party is illegal and the children begotten by the Second Party from her wedlock with the 3232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

Second Party are illegitimate childern , even then , their status as dependant cannot be taken away . Therefore, to my mind, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Leave Fare Concession cannot be accepted.

31. From the above referred discussions , though the 3rd charge in respect of Leave Fare Concession is not satisfactorily proved by the First Party , even then, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be depricated because from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer , the First Party has proved misconduct Nos . 1 and 2 and therefore, as the first Party has proved some misconduct ofthe Second Party , the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse . As the findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse , the only point for my consideration as to whether the punishment of dismissal awarded is subject to interference by invoking Sec . 11 -A ofthe 1.D. Act . My answer to this point is in the negative for the simple reason that the charge in respect of erasers and over writing in loan application form levelled against the Second Party is definitely serious in nature . It has a direct nexus with the faith in respect of Second Party in the mind of employer . By committing such act , in respect of loan application form Exh. U- 30, the Second Party has committedthe offence of forgery under Indian Penal Code , it is also serious misconduct under bipartite settlement. Because ofthe said misconduct, the Second Partydefinitely. looses the faith in the mind of employer and therefore , the punishment warded by the First Party that of dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate so as to invoke the provisions of Sec . 11 -A for substituting additional punishment by the taking lenient view . Therefore , I have no hesitation to conclude that , the Second Party is not entitled to claim reinstatement. Shri Konale has relied onfollowing judgements:

(1) Chief Conservator of Forest Vs. Rahimatulla (reported in 2003 (10) S.C.C. Pg . 92] ;

(2) R.K. Nigam Vs. Swadeshi Cotton Mills [reported in 2003 ( 10) S.C.C. Pg , 245 ] ;

(3) G. Sathi Reddy Vs. Depot Manager [ reported in2004 (10) S.C.C. Pg . 183 ] ;

(4) Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya S. Rai & Ors. (reported in 2005 S.C.C. Pg . 124) .

All these cases are in connection of entitlement of the deliquent to get full backwages if the punishment of dismissal is to be disturbed. In present case as two misconducts committed by the Second Party appears to have been proved , whereas the misconduct in respect of forgery in the loan application form appears to be serious , to my mind, the rulings relied on by Shri Konale is not helpful to the deliquent . Therefore , from.the above discussions, the reference will have to be answered in negative. Hence , order .

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

ORDER

Reference is answered in negative .

Pune.

Dated: 24th Nov. 06

S. S. VYAVAHARE , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1456.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/334/1992- आई.आर.( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1456. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 77/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the the management of W.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-4-2007 .

[No. L-22012/334/ 1992 - IR(C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/ NGP/ 77 /2003

Date: 24-1-2007

PETITIONER/PARTY NO . 1

Shri Ranjit Ranjan ,

Through the Joint Gen. Secretary , Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , Walni , Sillewara , Dist . Nagpur (M.S. )

Versus

RESPONDENT /PARTY NO.2

The Sub Area Manager , Walini Mines ofW.C.L. Sillewara , Dist. Nagpur (M.S. ) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

3233

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

AWARD

(Dated, 24th January 2007)

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Ranjit Ranjan , Through The Joint Gen. Secretary , Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh , Walni , Sillewara, Dist . Nagpur (M.S.) Party No. 1 and The Sub Area Manager , Walni Mines W.C.L. Sillewara, Dist . Nagpur ( MS ) Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-22012/ 334/92 - IR (C - II ) dt. 9-3-2003 under clause ( d) of sub Section ( 1) and sub Section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

2. "Whether the action of the Management of W.C. Ltd. , Nagpur for non -payment of salary from October 1988 to September 1990 as Shri Ranjit Ranjan was undergoing treatment on no work no pay basis? If not, what relief is the workman is entitled to ?" 3. The reference came for hearing today on 24-1-2007. The perusal of record indicates that right from the date of transfer of this claim the petitioner is not attending the Tribunal . It was for filing of the affidavit i.e. adducing an evidence in support of his claim . Today also the petitioner did not appear and adduced any evidence . Though the case was fixed for the same . It is stands as dismissed for the default of the petitioner.

Hence this award .

Dated: 24-1-2007

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1457.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/95/2002- आई.आर. (सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April, 2007

S.O. 1457. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 32/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in theIndustrial Dispute between the management of W.C.L. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-4-2007 .

[No. L -22012/ 95/2002- IR(CM - II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 2324 G1/07-16

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT /NGP/35/2002

Date: 24-1-2007

PETITIONER/PARTY NO. 1

Smt . Parvati Mohan , Through Shri S.R. Pendre , General Secretary, LalBavta Koyla Kamgar Sangh , Bhiwapur Ward No. 27 , Chandrapur(M.S. )

Versus

RESPONDENT/PARTY NO.2

The Sub Area Manager ,

New Majri Open Cast Sub Area ofW.C.L. Post Shivaji Nagar, Chandrapur(M.S. )

AWARD

(Dated, 24th January 2007)

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Smt . Parvati Mohan , Through Shri S.R. Pendre , General Secretary, Lal Bavta KoylaKamgar Sangh , Bhiwapur Ward No. 27, Chandrapur (M.S.) Party No. 1 and the sub Area Manager , New Majri Open Cast Sub Area of W.C.L. Post Shivaji Nagar , Chandrapur ( MS) Party No. 2 referred the same for adjudication tothis Tribunal vide its Letter No. L -22012/ 95/2001 - IR (CM - II ) dt . 26-3-2002 under clause (d) ofsub Section ( 1 ) and sub Section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

2. "Whether the action of the Management in relation to New Majri Open Cast Sub Area of W.C.L. , innot accepting the request of Smt . Parvati Mohan , General Mazdoor , for voluntary retirement and offering, in turn , employment to her dependent son as provided under the female voluntary retirement scheme is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Smt . Parvati Mohan is entitled to ? "

3. The claim came up for hearing today. It appears that except the counsel for the management/ respondent nobody is appearing for long time. The petitioner by filing her Statement of Claim had prayed to direct the party No. 1 management to declare the Party No. 2 workman medically unfit and provide a compassionate appointment to her physically handicapped son forthwith and grant any other relief. Today on behalf of the management an Order of Personal Managerdt . 16-11-2006, disclosing that the petitioner has been superannuated on 31-1-2006 after 3234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929 [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

The Vice Chairman ,

Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan , INA Market , New Delhi .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/30/ 2004- IR ( CM - II ) Central Government dt . 29-12-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :

attending her 60 years of age . Naturally the question of voluntary retirement would not be applicable . It appears that there was a scheme for voluntary retirement for the woman and appointing any person related to her on a compassionate ground . Since he has been retired after completion of 60 years , now there is no question of voluntary retiremet and the benefit of that scheme . The management has filed the pursis to that effect affixing the copy of the order of the retirement . In the present circumstances now there remains no dispute and accordingly no dispute award is passed and the reference is returned to the Ministry.

Hence this award.

Dated: 24-1-2007

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

"Whether the action of the management of Delhi Development Authority in relation to denial of equal pay for equal work to Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma , Ex- Security Guard ( Regular) w.e.f. 29-11-1994 to 20-9-2002; S/Sh . Kishan Pal Sharma and Sukhender Kumar Sharma , both Security Guard ( Regular ) w.e.f. 7-10-1994 to 11-3-2003 and 4-12-1995 to 11-3-2002 respectively at par with other Lower Division Clerks for performing the clerical job during the said period is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief they are entitled and from which date ? "

का.आ. 1458.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डी.डी.ए. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The workman applicant has filed claim statement in the claim statement it has stated that the service particulars of the concerned workmen to whom behalf the present claim is being filed are as under:

[सं. एल -42012/30/ 2004- आई.आर . ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

Names

Work Charge

Date of Appoint- ment

Work Charge (Regular) Job of LDC

Suresh Kr . 26-9-1984 19-9-1989 10-1-1991 29-11-1994 Sharma

K.P. Sharma 17-8-1980 6-1-1983 10-1-1991 7-10-1994 S.Q. 1458. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/2005) 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 Delhi Development Authority, and their workmenwhich was received by the Central Government on24-4-2007.

Sukhender 30-6-1983 19-9-1989 10-1-1991 4-12-1995 Kr. Sharma

[No. L-42012 /30/2004- IR (CM - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

R.N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 2/2005

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma and 2 others ,

That the workmen aforesaid were initially appointed asdaily wager Security Guard and their services were made work- charge/ regular w.e.f 10-1-1991 . During the period as detailed in para No. I above from their initial date of appointment , they were being treated daily rated/ casual / muster roll employees and were being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under Minimum Wages Act bytheAppropriate Government . While their counterparts , doing the work of identical nature and of the same value and who are being treated as regular employees are being paid their salaries in the proper pay scale and allowances , the benefits , which is completely denied , to the workmen aforesid .

C/ o TheGeneral Secretary,

Delbi Labour Union ,

Aggarwal Bhawan ,

G.T Karnal Road , Tis Hazari ,

Delhi- 110054.

Versus

That the workmen , thereafter , were assigned the duties of LDC from the date as mentioned above , which they are performing exclusively to the entire satisfaction to their superiors continuously and uninterruptedly. That the workmen are fully qualified for thejob of LDC in accordance [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

3235

ofSecurity Guard i.e. 950-1500 with usual allowances admissible under the rules .

with the Recruitment Regularization for the post of LDC as per the Recruitment Rules prevalent with the DDA that the workmen are performing the duties ofhigher posts but are being paid salary in lower pay scale i.e. in the pay scale of SecurityGuards.

That the action of the management is against the direction ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made in case of M.C.D. Vs. Lalit Mohan according to which the regularization of services shall be on ' post to post ' basis .

Thatthe action ofthe management in not regularizing services of the workmen on the post of L.D.C. and not granting wages to them at par with regular LDCs from the date they have been assigned the duty of LDC is wholly illegal , bad , unjust and mala fide for the following amongst other reasons .

That , a demand notice was also served upon the Chairman/Vice Chairman , Delhi Development Authority, by Regd. A/D post vide communication dt. 15-7-2002 but no reply has been received and it is presumed that the demand has been rejected . Thereafter , a Statement of Claim was filedbefore the Conciliation Officer , Govt . ofN.C.T. ofDelhi . The conciliation proceedings were initiated but the same were also resulted in failure because of the adamant and non - cooperative attitude of the management .

That the job of LDC against which the workmen aforesaid are working is of permanent and regular nature and they were assigned the duties of LDC w.e.f. date as mentioned in para No. 1 above for indefinite period and as such they are deemed to have been in the employment on permanent basis w.e.f. date they have been assigned the dutiesofLDC.

Thatemploying persons on regular nature of jobs and treating them as daily rated/casual/muster roll workers and paying them lesser remuneration than those doing the identical work and the work of same value amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 ( ra) read with Item No. 10 of Vth Schedule and read with Section 25 T punishable under Section 25 U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It is , therefore , prayed that an Award be made in favour of the workmen holding therein that the workmen concerned i.e. Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Shri Kishan Pal Sharma and Shri Sukhender Kumar Sharma are entitled to be regularized on the post of LDC and a direction may kindly be issued to the management accordingly to regularize the services of the workman aforesaid on the post of LDC from the date they have been assigned the dutiesof LDC in proper pay scale and allowance with all consequential benefits either monetary or non- monetary and to pay the difference of salaries due to them after adjusting the wages paid to them . The cost of litigation as provided in Section 11 (7 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may also be awarded to the workmen .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that regular and permanent nature of job is decided by the Department depending upon the vacancy with the Department . The requirement of employee was purely casual and temporary on the running project/ work as per site requirement on daily wages , work charge and W/Charge (R) basis.

The brief facts of the case are given below :

That the management of the Delhi Development Authority has not framed any rules of regularizations nor getitpassed by the U.P.S.C. and nor notified it in the Official Gazette for governing the service conditions of the daily rated/ casual muster roll/ part time/seasonal workers nor it has any certified Standing Orders , governing service conditions of the daily rated casual/ muster roll/part time/ seasonal workers nor it has any certified Standing Orders , governing service conditions of such workers and , therefore , the Model Standing Order framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workman and the management of the D.D.A.

That Sh . Suresh Kurnar Sharma S/o Shri A.D. Sharma transferred to MCD vide E.O. No. 410 dated : 20-9-2002 . Initially he was appointed on Muster Roll basis in DDA converted into Work Charge w.e.f. 19-9-89 and on work charge regular w.e.f. 10-1-1991 as a S/G as per order of higher authority .

That the workmen aforesaid have acquired the status of the permanent LDC after completing 90 days of continuous service w.e.f. the date they were assigned the duties of LDC as provided in Model Standing Order framed under the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders Act, 1946) .

That it is against the intention of the legislation as contained in Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act , 1976.

Sh . Kishan Pal Sharma S/ o Shri Mam Chand Sharma initially appointed on Muster Roll in DDA and converted onwork charge basis w.e.f. 6-1-83 and on work charge (R) basis w.e.f. 10-1-1991 . He is working in a capacity of work charge regular Security Guard as per order of higher authority from time to time .

Shri Sukhender Kumar Sharma S/ o Shri Bhim Singh Sharma initially he was appointed on Muster Roll basis in DDA and converted on work charge basis w.e.f. 19-9-1989 and on work charge (R) basis w.e.f. 10-1-1991 . He is working Thatassigning the work of a higher post and paying the salary of a lower post also amounts to unfair labour practice in addition to being a dishonest action . The workmen are being paid their salary in the lower pay scale 3236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] in a capacity ofwork charge regular Security Guard as per order ofhigher authority from time to time.

on 10-1-1991 . He was assigned the job of LDC on 20-11-1994.

Shri K. P. Sharma was initially engaged on 17-8-1980. He was placed on work charge on 6-1-1983 , placed on regular work charge on 1-10-1991 and was assigned the job of. LDC on 7-10-1994 .

Itissubmitted that the workmen was paid wages as fixed by the Delhi Administration from time to time. No wages of the workman were retained. The workman was paid wages as were paid to his counter part working as temporary employees , neither the workmen nor other daily wages employees were doing the same and identical work asregular employees and hence the question of same wages or same benefits as regular employees does not arise. The workman is not entitled to the benefits mentioned in his claim.

Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma was initially engaged asdaily wager on 30-6-1983 . He was placed on work on 19-9-1989 and on regular work charge on 10-1-1991 and he was assigned the job of LDC on 4-12-1995. The workmen have filed documents regarding their engagement and placement on work charge , on regular work charge and on thejob ofLDC.

Besides the documents filed by the workmen MW- 1 has categorically admitted in his cross - examination asunder :-

That there is no cause of action in favour of the workman as against the management of DDA , more so far. the reason the initial appointment of Sh . Suresh Kumar Sharma S /q . Shri A.D. Sharma, Shri K.P. Sharma S /o . Shri Mam Chand Sharma & Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma S/o . Bhim Singh Sharma was on the Post of S/G on Muster Roll Basis. They were converted on work charge basis and work charge regular basis as per order of higher authority and worked in a capacity of security guards . The wages as approved by the Govt . from time to time have been paid to which there was no protest .

It isdenied regarding regular and permanent nature ofjob . Regular and permanent nature ofjob is decided by the department depending upon the vacancy with the department. The requirement of employee was purely casual and temporary on the running project/ work as per site requirement on daily wages , work charge and w/charge (R) basis .

" I have joined the services in the division on the postof Executive Engineer on 29-5-2006 and since then Shri Kishan Pal Singh has been found working asDespatcher . I do not know whether Shri K. P. Sharma is working on the post of LDC from 7-10-1994 . I have no idea whether Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma is working on the post of LDC from 4-12-1995 . It is correct that Shri Kishan Pal Sharma is doing the same and similar work of LDC/ Despatcher asthe regular employees are doing of the department . I cannot say whether Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma is doing is the same work which is to be done by the regularLDC. I cannot say whether S/ Shri K. P. Sharma and Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma are doing the identical work which is done by the regular LDC . It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely." Department has engaged the employee in different caders that on daily wages , work charge basis and work charge regular basis on wages/ salaries decided by the Govt . for the same job as per the vacancy available with DDA time to time and this fact is also been conformating by Supreme Court Judgment No. JT 1995 (5) S.C. 636 dated 14-7-1995 in civil appeal No. 6481 of 1995 of SLP (C) No/95 CC-2786/95 ofGDA V/s . Vikram Choudhary and Other may kindly be perused .

It is apparent that MW - 1 has replied the question evasively . He has no knowledge regarding the working of the workmen at the post of LDC or Despatcher . His reply suggests that he has no knowledge as to when the job of LDC was assigned to the workmen . He has not denied that these workmen have not been working at the post of LDC asalleged.

Theworkmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have stated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

InPara- 1 of the claim statement the claimants have specifically mentioned their work as daily wager , on work charge basis , on regular work charge basis and on the job of LDC . This part has not been specifically denied . In Para- 1 it has been stated that it is denied regarding regular and permanent nature ofjob . It has not been denied in this para that the Para - 1 of the claim statement is wrong . It has not also been denied that the workmen are not working on the post of LDCs .

It was submitted from the side of the workman that Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma was initially engaged as daily wager on 26-9-1984 . He was placed on regular work charge on 19-9-1989 . He was again placed on regular work charge

From perusal of the documents on record and admission of MW -1 it is found proved that the workmen have been working at the posts as stated in Para- 1 of the claim statement . The workman Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

is discharging the work of LDC from 29-11-1994, Shri K. P. Sharma from 7-10-1994 and Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma from 6-12-1995 as such Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma performed 10 years job of LDC on 29-11-2004, Shri K. P. Sharma on 7-10-2004 and Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma on 4-12-2005.

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no question of regularization of the workmen as they have not been recruited through the procedure laid down by the government i.e. competitive examination .

Itwas further submitted that in view of Uma Devi's and Ors . case (2006) 4 Scale 1.97 the appointment on casual basisand on daily wage basis comes to an end when it is discontinued. The workmen cannot be regularized simply because they have been continued beyond the terms of theirappointment .

Ithas been held in this Constitution Bench Judgment asunder :-

"The courts must be careful in ensuring that theydo not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates ."

It isalso submitted that relying on Uma Devi's case judgment the Hon'ble High Court and CATs all over the country have refused the claim of regularization in respective departments . In case the workmen are regularized , back door entries will be increased in the organization.

The management has filed photocopy of LPS 66/ 2007 and photocopy of the judgment of WPs Nos . 4542/ 2005, 3015-16/2005 , 1721/2005, 1234-36/2005 , 5140/2003 , 18406-09/2004, 12784-91/2004, 5140/2003 , 11813 /2004,5140/ 2003 and 4993/2000 .

From perusal of the photocopy of the judgment it is not clear whether these petitioners were parties in the Writ Petitions. So the judgment in the abovementioned WPs are not applicable in the instant case . These judgments are not judgment in rem . The case of the workmen have not been decided either by the CAT or by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

It has been held in Uma Devi's case as under :-

(a) Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic , has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder . Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf . Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure

3237

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

that unequals are not treated equals . Thus , any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme . (Para 1) .

(b) A sovereign government , considering the economic situation in the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on dailywages .Going by a law newly enacted , theNational Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to atleast one member of a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under thatAct. But a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resorted to , when regular vacancies in posts , at a particular point of time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations . Regular appointment must be the rule( Para 2).

It is true that the workmen have not been appointed as per recruitment rules and through the selection procedure . It has also been held in this case that the government is not precluded from making temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages . Public employment can only be done in terms of constitutional scheme.

Itwas further submitted that the workmen have not been appointed in terms of relevant rules and after a proper compensation among qualified persons . The same would not confer any right on the appointee , if it is a contractual appointment.

It has been further held in Uma Devi's case (2006) 4 Scale as under :----

"Oneaspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments ( not illegal appointments ) as explained in S. V. Narayanappa ( supra) , R. N. Nanjundappa ( supra) , and B. N. Nagarajan (supra) , and referred to in paragraph 15 above , of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or oftribunals . The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed persons who have worked for ten years ormore in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover 3238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

oforders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed . The process must be set in motion within six months from this date."

The Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the government to regularize those workmen who have worked for 10 years without the orders of any court and against the sanctioned posts within six months from the date of thejudgment . It is admitted fact that the workmen have worked for 10 years on the post of LDCs and without orders of the court . The management has not denied that thepost of LDCs for regularization is not existing . By this timealmost all the workmen have performed 12 to 13 years ofregular work on the post of LDC . In view ofthisjudgment the government should have formulated a scheme for regularization but no such scheme has been formulated. Theworkmen have still been kept temporary and they are continued in service .

The workmen have admittedly been serving the department from 1980 , 1983 and 1984. Thus, by 29-11-1994 the workman Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma has served the management for 23 years , Shri K. P. Sharma has served the management for 27 years and Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma for 24 years . In case their entire tenure of service is counted , they are likely to be superannuated within 5 to 10 years .

Thus, the workmen have performed duties under the management for more than 23 to 24 years . In case they are not regularized they would be superannuated without any benefitof their long dedicated service . The workmen have been performing job of LDCs from 12 to 13 years . There is no adverse remarks against the discharge of duty ofthese workmen . Thus, the workmen deserve regularization in view ofP-44 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Uma Devi's and others case . The case of the workmen is squarely covered under the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court . The department has not taken any initiative for regularization ofthese workmen even after one year of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed the government to regularize the services of such workmen who have worked for 10 years withoutorders of court and against the sanctioned posts . The workmen have worked for more than 10 years . They have not worked under orders of any court and they have worked against the sanctioned posts .

It is true that creation of posts is prerogative of the government but public employment cannot be given as a dailywager for the entire tenure of service of an employee . There is no constitutional scheme to give appointment to the citizens ofthe country only on daily wages basis . The department may appoint daily wagers for 2 to 3 years or under some scheme. These workmen have worked directly

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] under the DDA . They have not been engaged on any project or scheme , thus , they deserve regularization .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workmen are not entitled to the principle of equal pay for equal work as they have not been appointed through recruitment rules and process of selection.

My attention was drawn to State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh , date of decision 7-11-1996 . It has been held in this case that if a workman is appointed on daily wages basis he cannot claim pay at par with regular employees holding similar posts as requisite qualification are not required for the engagement of daily wager . Daily wager cannot be treated at par with regular employees . This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

Ithas been held in ( 1988 ) 3 SCC page 354 as under :-

"Ithas been held to be a constitutional obligation to ensure equal pay for equal work where the two sets ofemployees discharge similar responsibilities under similar working conditions . The plea of temporary or casual nature of employment or full time and part time employment had been negated."

In the instant case two sets of employees are discharging similar responsibilities under similar working conditions . They have been assigned the job of LDC and they have been discharging this job for 12 to 13 years .

Ithas been held in ( 1991 ) 1 SCC pg . 619 as under :-

"Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers ' Union Vs. Union of India and Ors ; though on facts no discrimination wasfoundbut the principles of equal pay for equal work was upheld and recognized where all were placed similarly and discharging same duties and responsibilities irrespective of casual nature of work. This right had been held to have assumed status of afundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16. "

Ithas been held in this case that in case workmen are placed similarly and discharging the same duties and responsibilities irrespective of casual nature of work, their right assumes the status of a fundamental right in service jurisprudence in view of Articles 14 and 16 .

My attention was drawn to 2003 V ( SC) 407. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : --

"Discharging similar nature of duties in comparision to their regular counter - parts-However, benefits not given at par- Not proper-So far as temporary and voluntary character of their jobs is concerned , when they are allowed to continue for such long periods , 3239

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

thatcharacter oftheir initial joining is lost-Parity of benefits should be given. "

The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case the workmen are allowed to continue for long periods the character of their initial appointment is lost and they are entitled to parity ofbenefits .

In the instant case the workmen though, engaged casually have been working for 12 to 13 years their right to work has assumed the status of a fundamental right . They aredischarging similar nature of duties in comparision to their regular counter - parts , so the workmen are entitled to parity of benefits and parity of scale .

In view of the above judgment the workmen are entitled to equality of status atleast after 10 years of their service on the post of LDC . The management should make payments of the total emoluments of LDCs to the workmen S/Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma from 29-11-2004, K. P. Sharma from 7-10-2004 and Shri Sukhinder Kumar Sharma from 4-12-2005 . They are entitled to the entire arfears of the salary of regular LDGs from the date mentioned above.

The law cited by the management in State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer Singh dated 7-11-1996 is not applicable in the instant case in view of long tenure of service of the workmen . The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2003.V pg. 407 irapplicable as they have been allowedto continue for more than 12 to 13 years at the post of LDCs .

The workmen are entitled to payment at par with other Lower Division Clerks atleast after 10 years of the assignment of Clerical job and regularization .

The reference is replied thus :-

Theaction ofthe management of Delhi Development Authority in relation to denial of equal pay for equal work to the workmen is neither legal nor justified . Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Shri Kishan Pal Sharma and Shri Sukhinder.Kumar Sharma are entitled to equal pay for equal work atleast from 29-11-2004 , 7-10-2004 & 4-12-2005 . The management should regularize theseworkmen on the post of LDC within two months from the date of publication of the award . The management should also pay the workmen the arrears ofthe wages of the salary of LDCs to these workmen from the dates mentioned above i.e. after 10 years of the assignment of the job of LDC .

The award is given accordingly.

Date : 16-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1459.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल इलेक्ट्रानिक्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 66/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/6/2001- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1459. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.66/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Electronics Limited, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-4-2007 .

[No. L-42012/6/2001 - IR(CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT II , NEW DELHI R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 66/2001

PRESENT:

Sh . Suresh Kr . Sharma Sh A. K. Roy

-1stParty -2nd Party IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Rajender Kumar Sharma, S/o. Shri Deep Chand Sharma, R/o. III :Atta, E-2, Bhagirathi Vihar , Delhi-110092.

Versus

TheGeneral Manager , Central Electronics Limited , 4, Industrial Area , Sahibabad, Ghaziabad(UP).

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 42012/6/ 2001 - IR ( CM - II) Central Government Dt . 6-9-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The points runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Electronics Limited, Shahibabad in terminating Shri Rajender Kumar Sharma, Operator from services 3240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] w.e.f. 27-12-1997 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to . "

Theworkman applicant has filed statement ofclaim. It has been stated therein that the workman/claimant was appointed in the company /establishment on 21-1-1981 on the post of Operator " A " and the time he was illegally terminated from the services , he was as Junior Supervisor and was getting monthly salary of Rs . 11259.

That during his whole period of service with the opposite party, the workman always performed his duties with utmost perfection , dedication , obedience and efficiency and never gave any chance of complaint to the management which is obvious from the fact that he was never been chargesheeted or even warned before the alleged chargesheet dated 21-8-1997.

That during the month of July, 1996 the claimant/ workman felt discomfort due to chest pain but taking it as normal pain he kept on performing his routine factory duties .

Thatthereafter, the workman resumed his usual duty inthe factory/company with this wishes and hopes that ill health will never cause interruption in his active life and he will smoothly perform his routine 'duties but his hopes proved to be futile when he again fell ill on 2-12-1996. Severe chest pain with fast fever griped him tightly. Consequent whereupon he became very feeble and it was impossible for him in this condition to reach to his factory . Therefore , theworkman had to stay home for a regular treatment from theGovernment Dispensary . However , this time also the workman had informed the department about his ill health by awritten representation and requested for co - operation at this critical time . The claimant remained under intense treatment till dated 8-4-1997 . Therefore , the workman reported for the duty on 9-4-1997 and submitted necessary documents including medical certificate and prescriptions issued by the dispensary, copy of application he wrote to the management during illness along with copy of postal UPC thereof and requested the management through application dated 9-4-1997 to sanction leaves for the said period of illness . This time also the management was pleased to duly sanction the said leaves on getting proper explanation from the workman .

Thathowever, suddenly on dated 15-7-1996 the chest paingot intensified and became intolerable, therefore , the workman was resorted to go to doctor for its treatment who in addition to taking prescribed medicines , advised for complete bed rest till the pain is cured . Therefore , the workman had to stay at home till he is fully recovered from this. However, the workman had informed about his illness to his department telephonically.

Thatthe workman was declared fit on 10-9-1996. Therefore, the workman reported for his duty next day on 11-9-1996 and submitted an application along with a medical certificate of the doctor dated 11-9-1996 before the management with the request to sanction leave for the period he remained ill i.e. from 15-7-1996 to 10-9-1996 . The management was pleased to sanction leave for the said period and the applicant resumed his routine duties in the factory/company.

That by this time , the workman had become very weak physically as well as economically because of frequent illness and due to unavoidable remaining absent from his dutis for a long period of time, therefore , for the sake of his livelihood and to keep his service intact he was willing to perform his duties regularly but perhaps the fortunes was to test him even more rigorously as the circumstances turned even worse . On 16-6-1997 workman's grandmother , who was very old, fell ill . Since there was nobody in the house to look after her properly, he had to stay at home and spend whole time for her care and medical treatment and as such was not at all in the position to perform his duties despite his best efforts and wishes. However, the workman had informed about his grandmother's illness through a written application dated 15-7-1997 to Sr. Manager ( P & A ) in addition to the separate telephonic message. Further through his application dated 31-12-1997 , he had also informed the Sr. Manager ( P & A) in detail about his grandmother's illness which was accompanied by the medical certificate dated 15-9-1997 and medical prescription issued by the Doctor of the hospital with the request to co - operate with him , he had also submitted that he will report for the duties as soon as his grandmother recovers from the said illness . His grandmother remained under treatment from 16-6-1997 to 19-12-1997.

That in the meantime the workman was utterly surprised when he was in receipt of an Office Order No. 2(96)/80 - Pers dated 22-11-1997 from Chief Manager ( SPV- P) (Disciplinary Authority) through which he came to know that the applicant has been allegedly issued a chargesheet dated 21-8-1997 (which the applicant did not ever receive ) and on the basis of the said alleged chargesheet a domestic That however , the applicant once again fell ill on 4-10-1996 and again had to go to the doctor for the medical treatment who after thorough check up prescribed necessary medicines and advised complete bed rest till he is fully curedfrom the disease . Therefore , the workman had to confine to bed rest till he remained under treatment . However , he had informed the management about his disease through telephone. The workman's treatment lasted till 20-10-1996 . Therefore , he had to remain absent from duties till this time . On 31-10-1996 he reached his duty in factory prescribed time and endorsed his entry in factory gate register . He also presented medical certificate dated 31-10-1996 before the management and submitted an application of even date to sanction leave for the period of his illness narrating his constrains for remaining absent from 4-10-1996 to 30-10-1996 . The applicant was duly sanctioned leaves for the said period.

[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii) ]

inquiry has been ordered to set up and Shri U. S. Taneja has been appointed as the Inquiry Officer of the same. Through the said order the workman was ordered to appear before the Inquiry Officer.

Thatsubsequently , the workman received another letter No. 2 (926)/80 Pers . dated 3-12-1997 from Shri U. S. Taneja, Assistant Manager (CP) and Inquiry Officer " in the domestic inquiry " in which the workman was directed by the Inquiry Officer to appear before him on the fixed date 20-12-1997 and to put up his defence against the allegedly said charges failing which he will proceed ex parte against the workman .

That the workman was already plunged by the multiple miseries of poor physical, mental and economical conditions and dire family circumstances , the aforesaid OfficeOrder dated 27-12-1997 and Inquiry Officer's letter dated3-12-1997 deepened them even further . Yet to prove himself innocent and to keep his employment intact the workman was prepared to appear before the InquiryOfficer on the date fixed so that he could put up his case strongly by stating real facts . But neither did he ever receive any copy of alleged chargesheet , nor did he know anything about the charges . Therefore , he wrote an application to GM(P & A) dated 13-12-1997 to stay the Inquiry proceeding till his health as well as his father's and grandmother's ill health is improved and he comes out of the grip of natural calamities which had surrounded him and his family . He also requested to send copy of chargesheet so that he can participate in the said domestic inquiry with proper defence he has to set- up . But add fuel to fire , the circumstances became even more critical when he fell ill due to fever on 20-12-1997 . Therefore , the workman had to write an application dated 20-12-1997 to the Inquiry Officer , Shri U.S. Taneja about his inability to appear before him on that date. He also requested to co- operate and make available a copy of chargesheet for the ends of justice and adjourn the domestic inquiry to some other date.

That the workman was optimistic that his request will be considered sympathetically and he will be furnished with the copy of needed documents and will be given sufficient opportunity to put forward his defence on next date fixed . But the workman was shocked to receive the subsequent letter of Jt . GM ( PAD/HRD) dated 27-12-1997 through which he came to know that on the basis of alleged charges of un - authorised absence from 17-7-1996 to 30-6-1997 and from 1-7-1997 onwards an alleged chargesheet dated 21-8-1997 was allegedly issued in the name of the workman on the basis whereof a domestic inquiry was ordered to be set - up and Shri U.S. Taneja was appointed the Inquiry Officer of the said inquiry . The said Inquiry Officer gave his findings holding the charges tobe proved on the basis of an ex parte proceeding without giving the workman sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Consequent thereupon , in a preplanned and 2324 GI/07-17

3241

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 19, 2007 /वैशाख 29 , 1929

pre-determined manner the applicant was removed from the services ofthe factory with immediate effect.

That the act of opposite party company/establishment management to remove the workman from the service in a deliberate and pre- planned is quite illegal , arbitrary, immoral and mala fide as the workman never remained absent from hisduties unauthorisedly for any period oftime. Whenever he has to remain absent due to unavoidable reasons , he always got sanctioned leave from the mariagement on giving appropriate explanation . Therefore , the act of opposite party isalso gross neglect of labour laws and relevant provisions of ID Act, 1947 as well as the principles of natural justice. Before the said removal of service , neither the workman was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself nor one month'snotice/pay was given to him , nor was he given any retrenchment compensation or any other benefitwhich. theworkman was entitled for .

That the domestic inquiry constituted to inquire into the alleged charges against the workman was also conducted proceeding in a quite illegal , baseless , arbitrary and prejudiced manner which was not more than a pe- planned and pre-determined drama of the management to separate/ remove the workman from the services of companywherein the Inquiry Officer conducted the whole proceedings hurriedly and without following the principles ofnatural justicewhich is an essential ingredient of domestic inquiry . The said domestic inquiry was quite wrong , illegal and baseless on the following inter alia grounds :

(a) Because the Inquiry Officer did not ever furnish with a copy of the alleged chargesheet despite demands and requests .

(b) Because of not furnishing any copy of alleged chargesheet the workman was deprived from opportunity of presenting its proper reply against the charges leveled against him .

(c) Because the workman was sent a letter No. 2(926)/80 - Pers dated 22-11-1997 by the Admn . Officer through which he sent information of setting up of a domestic inquiry wherein reference to the chargesheet was made which was an obvious indication of the Admn . Officer to exceed the powers of Inquiry Officer and to conclude the inquiry proceedings in a ex parte manner . This clearly envisage that the Inquiry Officer was not acting independently and in judicious manner .

(d) Because the Inquiry Officer fixed the first date on 20-12-1997 but the workman could not appear on that date due to ill health . He requested the Inquiry Officer through a written application to fix next date showing his inability to appear but the Inquiry Officer did not consider this fact and proceeded ex parte against him .

3242

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29, 1929

(b) Award costs pendente- lite in favour of the workman.

(e) Because despite the request of the workman , he wasnot furnished any copy of chargesheet and the Inquiry Officer on the solitary dated 20-12-1997 fixed in the inquiry, passed orders to proceeded ex parte without giving any further opportunity to the workman .

(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deemds fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of the workman.

(f) Because whole domestic inquiry was conducted in prejudiced and arbitrary way by the Inquiry Officer who did not follow the principles of natural justice and misused his powers by proceeding ex parte on very first day by not giving the workman sufficient opportunity to present his case .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present matter of the alleged dispute under the ID Act , 1947 since the appropriate government in respect of respondent company is the State Government only which is evident from Notification dated 3-7-1998 issued by the Ministry of Labour where all the power exercisable by the Central Government under the provisions of the ID Act , 1947 and the rules made thereunder had been delegated to the State Government. Not only this even on the date of dismissing the applicant i.e. 27-12-1997 the appropriate government was the State Government . It is respectfully submitted that the respondent company moved an application before the ALC, Dehradun raising the preliminary objection in regard to the jurisdiction , but the said objection was not decided by the Tribunal . In view of this the present statement of claim under reply is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction.

(g) Because quite surprisingly and remarkably whole of the inquiry proceeding i.e. from the date of setting up ofthe domestic inquiry till the date of separation ofthe workman from the services of the company was completed within 4 working days. This clearly envisages how the Administrative Authority and the Inquiry Officer acted in a concerned way without observing principles of natural justice and without following various judicial interpretations and provisions of relevant labour laws and taking undue advantage of their high position , separated the workman from the services of the company.

That to review and reconsider their decision of removing the workman from the services of company in an illegal , unconstitutional , arbibrary, illogical and mala fide way and to reinstate the applicant back to the services of the company, the applicant sent written applications dated 29-8-1998 and dated 14-1-1998 to the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Company. But they did not ever respond to the said representations of the applicant.

That the workman committed misconduct by being habitually absenting himself from duties without taking prior permission of the sanctioning authority , thereby , being on unauthorized absent . Therefore , there is a clear cutviolation of the rules of the respondent company by which the employee is governed and further tried to take undue advantage of the lenience shown by the respondent management . It is pertinent to note that the claimant was onun-authorised absence for a period of 233 days from July, 1996 by unilaterally determining his terms of contract which tantamount to persistent refusal to carry out the obligations.

That in addition , the workman also sent written representations dated 17-12-1999 and 10-9-1999 through the employees union of the Company, but the management did not react on them also . Since the date of removal from theservices of the company, the applicant has never been employed anywhere .

That the claim is liable to be rejected on grounds of latches because there is lack of due diligence and inordinate delay in filing the present application under reply which shows the casual approach of the workman . There is no infirmity on the part of the management in dismissing the workmanw.e.f. 27-12-1997 . It is further submitted that no sufficient cause/explanation has been given by the workman on account of undue delay in the claim statement under reply ; therefore , the same is liable to be rejected.

Itis, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the aforesaid Industrial Dispute and in the interest of justice this Hon'ble Tribunal /Court may graciously be pleased to award/decide the reference order in favour of the workman and against the opposite party company by directing it :-

That the claim statement under reply is bad in law and misconceived and not maintainable due to the reasons that the concerned officer issued chargesheet with regard to 233 days un-authorised absence of workınan during the period from 15-7-1996 to 30-6-1997 and also for his continuous un - authorised absence from 1-7-1997 onwards and the same was dispatched to him at the address informed (a) Reinstatment of the workman back in services ofthecompany in continuation from the date of his separation/removal from the services with foll back wages and other benefits which the workman was otherwise entitled for and declaring the order of opposite party dated 27-12-1997 to be null and void .

[भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

by him for his personal records . Since no explanation was received from the workman , therefore, a domestic inquiry wasordered to be conducted and Shri U. S. Taneja was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry as per principles of natural justice to investigate into the charges levelled against the workman . The inquiry wasconducted as per the principles of natural justice and full opportunity was given to the workman to defend his case. In spite ofcommunication to the workman , he chose not to participate in the inquiry and therefore , the inquiry wasconducted ex parte . The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report containing his findings and connected documents to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered the inquiry proceedings and agreed with the findings of the inquiry proceeding and also the reasons given by the Inquiry Officer . The charges leveled against the workman were fully proved in the domestic inquiry: It is respectfully submitted that the Disciplinary Authority after thorough considerations and perusal of document , decided to remove the workman from the services of the management and accordingly, the workman was removed from the services of the company w.e.f. 27-12-1997 . The claim statement of the applicant is, therefore , misconceived , bad in law , frivolous and is liable to be rejected on this sole ground .

It is vehemently denied that the claimant was terminated illegally . As it has been mentioned in hereinabove that the termination is based on domestic inquiry and on the subsequent findings of the Inquiry Officer. It is respectfully submitted that the domestic inquiry was conducted as per principles of natural justice after giving full opportunity to the workman to defend his case but even after receiving the notice , he decided not to appear before the Inquiry Officer as such the inquiry was conducted ex parte .

Itisincorrect that the service record of the workman is clean and he was performing his duties with utmost perfection , dedication , obedience and efficiency and never gave any chance of complaint to the management . The same is evident from the fact that the workman was a habitual absentee and was in the practice of being on un - authorised absence from duty. For that the workman was excused and/ orwarned a number of times but he did not improve.

It was submitted that workman has raised a concocted story with a view to prejudice the minds ofthis Hon'ble Authority. It is submitted that from the averments ofworkman , it is evident that he hardly attended his duties from July, 1996 to 27-12-1997 and remained absent on one pretext or the other without any prior sanction . It is further submitted that the workman absented himselffrom 15-7-1996 to 10-9-1996 , 4-10-1996 to 30-10-1996, 20-11-1996 to 23-11-1996, 1-12-1996 to 8-4-1997 , 16-6-1997 and onwards, hence the management was constrained to serve with a chargesheet dated 21-8-1997 asking the workman to reply

3243

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

back within 48 hours looking into the seriousness and gravity of the matter, but the workman preferred not to reply and to continue on un - authorised absence under the presumption/ impression that it was his right:

It is, however, submitted that since the workman remained un - authorisedly absent for 233 days and no explanation was received from the workman, a domestic inquiry was ordered to be conducted and accordingly Shri U. S. Taneja, AGM ( CP) was appointed as the InquiryOfficer vide letter dated 22-11-1997 being number 29926/80-Pers . and information regarding the appointment ofthe Inquiry Officer was communicated to the workman and the same was received by him. It is further submitted that from the contents of para under reply, it is evident that theworkman received letter dated 22-11-1997 but even after that he did not participate in the domestic inquiry intentionally.

It isfurther submitted that letter no . 2 (926)/80 - Pers . dated3-12-1997 written by Inquiry Officer , Shri U. S. Taneja was write letter to workman informing about the date and time fixed for the inquiry and the same was duly received by him but in spite of instructions from the Inquiry Officer , theworkman did not put his appearance before the Inquiry Officer on the date fixed .

The allegations have been raised by the workman only with a view to prejudice the minds of this Hon'ble Tribunal . It is respectfully submitted that the workman, Shri R. K. Sharma, was duly posted and served with chargesheet but he choose not to reply . It is further submitted that the allegations regarding posting ofalleged letter dated 13-12-1997 by the workman is false and fabricated and the receipt of the same by the management of the answering company is denied . Since no such letter was received from the workman , therefore , the question of replying to the same does not arise at all . The allegation regarding posting of alleged letter dated 20-12-1997 by the workman, Shri Sharma to the Inquiry Officer is also denied. No such letter from the workman was received by the InquiryOfficer .The allegations in para under reply are false and fabricated . The factual position is that the workman did not put his appearance before the Inquiry Officer intentionally on the date fixed in spite of the fact that inquiry notices were received by him in time . As such no action of the management as well as of the Inquiry Officer can be termed as illegal . It is respectfully submitted that the inquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice.

It issubmitted that the chargesheet dated 21-8-1997 wasduly posted and served upon the workman but the same was not replied . Since no explanation was received from the workman , a domestic inquiry was ordered to be conducted and accordingly an Inquiry Officer was appointed to investigate into the charges levelled against the workman . It is further submitted that as it has been mentioned in the preceding paras that the inquiry was conducted as per the principles of natural justice and the .3244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] full opportunity was given to the workman to defend the case but the workman decided not to participate in the inquiry, therefore , the inquiry was conducted ex parte . It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority after careful consideration of inquiry report and findings of the inquiry proceedings , removed the workman from the services of thecompanyvide letter no. 2 (926)/80-Pers . dated 27-12-1997 withimmediate effect .

that notice and chargesheet has been sent by registered post. There is no proof of service of notice and chargesheet onthe workman . MW - 1 has further admitted that he could not say whether the reply of the workman dated 13-12-1997 wasreceived by the Inquiry Officer , Shri U. S. Taneja. He has also stated in the cross examination that he was not sure whether letter dated 20-12-1997 was sent to the workman by the Inquiry Officer, Shri U. S. Taneja.

Itissubmitted that no action of the management of answering respondent can be termed as illegal . The management was justified in taking the action of removal of the workman from the services of the company. It is further submitted that the workman , Shri Sharma does not fall within the purview of the provisions of retrenchment as contemplated in the ID Act , 1947 so the question of payment of one month's notice period or retrenchment compensation by the answering company does not arise atall .

It has been mentioned in the preceding paragraph that the domestic inquiry was conducted as per the principles ofnatural justice after giving full opportunity of defence to the workman; therefore , the action of the management cannot be termed as illegal .

It was further submitted that the workman sent a letter alongwith medical certificate on 15-4-1997 and it was received on the same day . Again he sent letter dated 31-12-1997 , it was also received on the same day . The management has not denied the photocopy letters dated 20-12-1997 and 13-12-1997 , so the letters dated 15-4-1997 & 31-12-1997 supported with medical certificate have been received by the management . The management has also received letters dated 13-12-1997 and 20-12-1997 . The management has not denied the receipt of the letters dated 30-12-1997 & 13-12-1997. The workman has requested the management to supply him a copy of the chargesheet and relevant documents . There is no proofthat the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer have sent the office order regarding initiation of the inquiry and chargesheet to the workman. MW- 1 has categorically admitted that there is no proof of service of office order and chargesheet .

It issubmitted that the chargesheet was posted and served upon the workman but the same was not replied by him. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer acted as an independent person after following the principles of natural justice and no action of the Inquiry Officer can be termed as illegal .

Italso becomes vivid from perusal of the record by letter dated 13-12-1997, the workman requested the Inquiry Officer to supply him a copy of chargesheet . This proves that the workman has neither received the chargesheet nor the office order initiating inquiry proceedings .

Itisfurther submitted that the concerned person did not put his appearance on 20-12-1997 intentionally. It is submitted that no such letter was received by the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that the inquiry was conducted by theInquiry Officer as per the procedure and as per principles of natural justice , therefore , no action of the Inquiry Officer canbe termed as illegal .

It also becomes quite obvious from perusal of the record that the inquiry was held on 20-12-1997 and it was concluded on the same day , whereas the workman has sent letter dated 13-12-1997 requesting for supply of the chargesheet. The Inquiry Officer has concluded the inquiry on 20-12-1997 in the absence of the workman and without serving on him the chargesheet . The Inquiry Officer has givenhis report on 22-12-1997 . There is no proof that any notice for personal hearing has been given by the management .

On the foregoing submissions , it is most respectfully prayed that the claim statement is devoid of merit and has been made out just for the sake of doing the same hence is liable to be dismissed with cost .

It also becomes obvious from removal order dated 27-12-1997 that the workman was not heard on the point of punishment . No show cause notice for personal hearing has been given even by the Disciplinary Authority .

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.

The management has not denied the several letters sentby the workman supported by medical certificates for leave .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

From the foregoing this fact is established that the workman has not been served the chargesheet and office order regarding initiation of inquiry proceedings . By the admission of MW- 1 and the letter of the workman dated 13-12-1997 demanding a copy of chargesheet and order of initiation ofthe inquiry ; it is not a case in which the workman Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that chargesheet was framed against him on 21-8-1997 but he was not in receipt of the chargesheet. MW- 1 has admitted [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

3245 deliberately withdrew himself from the proceedings of the inquiry or he was not co - operating with the inquiry proceedings . It cannot be said that the workman attempted to stultify the inquiry and his attitude was of complete non - co - operation . The inquiry was held on 20-12-1997 in the absence of the workman and it was concluded on the same day. The findings were given on 22-12-1997 and removal order was passed on 27-12-1997 without giving any show cause notice of personal hearing of the workman. As such the management has failed to prove that principles of natural justice have been followed.

It isun-disputed that the workman has worked sincerely, honestly and diligently from the date of his appointment i.e. 21-1-1981 to 1995. He constantly fell ill in 1996 and he could not get himself cured and he exhausted all his leave . Anyone can fall ill seriously and he may remain ill for one or two years . The management, ought to have ascertained whether the workman was seriously ill and he was not in a position to attend his duties . In case a workman falls seriously ill and he is not in a position to resume his work his absence may be treated as leave without pay. Habitual absence always implies temporary absence of a workman. Thisworkman has remained seriously ill for the period of his absence and he has sent applications supportedby medical leave . None of his applications have been rejected.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman was habitual absentee. He proceeded on leave without sanctioned leave . My attention was drawn to 7.8 of the Service Rules . It is as under :-

" 7.8 . Availing of any leave without proper sanction according to rules , shall be treated as unauthorized absence from duty and will be liable for disciplinary action under conduct rules, standing orders of the company."

The management has failed to prove the service of the chargesheet and office order to the workman . The inquiry has been concluded in hot haste . The inquiry was held on 20-12-1997 . It proceeded ex parte the same day and it was also concluded the same day. No opportunity to the workman has been given whereas he has already sent letter dated 13-12-1997 seeking a copy of the chargesheet. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report after two days i.e. on 22-12-1997 after conclusion ofthe inquiry on 20-12-1997. The Disciplinary Authority also passed the order of removal on 27-12-1997 without issuing show cause notice . In such circumstances the inquiry stands vitiated .

Itwas submitted that the workman was absent for 230 days between 15-7-1996 to 30-6-1997 and there was total unauthorized absence for 455 days between January , 1996 to 27th December, 1997, the date oftermination ofhis services . The workman has exhausted special casual leave of77½ days and 29 days of EOL . The workman within a period of 726 days between 1st January , 1996 to 27th December, 1997 has presented himself for work totaling to 120.5days .

Ithasbeen held in (2001) 1 SCC 182 that the doctrine of natural justice is not only to secure justice but to prevent mis- carriage ofjustice.

Itwas further submitted that in view of service rules P-7-8hisservices have been terminated.

My attention was drawn to DTC Vs. Sardar Singh (2004) 7 SCC 574. It has been held that conclusion regarding negligence and lack of interest can be arrived at by looking into the period of absence mere particularly when some is unauthorized.

Ithas been further held in ( 1999) 1 SCC 759 that it is afundamental requirement of law that the doctrine on natural justice be complied with and the same as , is a matter of fact turned out to be integral part of the administration jurisprudence. The judicial process itself embraces a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend though the same is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case .

My attention was drawn to (2000) 5 SCC Page 65 , (2003 ) 3 SCC 309. It has been held that mere application for grant of leave cannot be construed to be a proper intimation of leave . It is true that in case a workman is found habitual absentee the services of such workman can be terminated .

The law cited by the management is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the persent case.

In the instant case it is quite apparent that the workman even has not been served a chargesheet. The inquiry was concluded on one and the same day. Punishment was imposed without show cause notice of personal hearing. The management has not adopted fair procedure . The inquiry stands vitiated on this count alone .

The workman applicant joined the Company of the establishment on 21-1-1981 . There is no case of unauthorized absence or habitual absence prior to January , 1996. The workman has filed applications supported by medical certificates . He was ill and he was not in a position to attend office and he has regulraly sent applications . Sometimes he has come and given the application in the office itself. This indicates that the workman was sincere for availing leave .

From perusal of the record it also becomes obvious thatthe workman was also negligent to some extent . He was absent for a long period though his illness does not appear to be so serious . He has remained on leave without prior sanction. In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman is entitled to reinstatement only with 25% backwages .

3246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

The reference is replied thus :

Theaction of the management of Central Electronics Limited , Shahibabad in terminating Shri Rajender Kumar Sharma, Operator from services w.e.f. 27-12-1997 is neither legal norjustified . The workman is entitled to reinstatement alongwith 25% back wages and continuity of service and other consequential benefits . The management should reinstate the workman within two months from the date of the publication of the award and pay him the arrears of wages.

The award is given accordingly.

Dated: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1460.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० रॉयल एअरवेज लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निविष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली-नं.- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/2/2006- आई.आर. ( सी एम-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1460. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No.45/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court New Delhi now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M/ s . Royal Airways Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on20-04-2007 .

[No. L- 11012/2/2006- IR(CM - I )] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 45/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Balraj ,

C/ o . P. L. Srivastava,

CB -280, Ring Road , Naraina, NewDelhi -28.

Versus

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ] M/ s. Royal Airways Limited ,

Cargo Complex , IGI Airport, Terminal- 1,

New Delhi - 110037 .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/ 2 / 2006 [ IR ( CM - I) ] Central Governmentdt . 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Balraj S/ o . Shri Hazari Singh w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is just , fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ?"

Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006. There is direction for giving award within a period of 3 months .

Theworkman was given dates i.e. 12-9-2006, 20-3-2007 and 18-4-2007 for filing claim statement . The workman did not turn up . He has not filed claim statement . The opportunity offiling the claim was closed on 18-4-2007.

No dispute award is given .

Dated: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1461.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० स्पाइसजेट लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- नं.- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/21/2006- आई.आर. ( सी एम -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1461.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 44/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , New Delhi now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007.

[No. L - 11012/ 21 /2006- IR( CM - I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

3247

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 44/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Umesh Kumar, C/ o . The President, Bhartiya Shramjivi Sangh , CB-280, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi -28 .

Versus

The General Manager ,

M/s. Spicejet Limited, Pl . No. 319, Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon , Haryana.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012 /21 / 2006 [ IR (CM - 1 ) ] Central Government dt. 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways/Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Umesh Kumar w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ? " It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006 . There is direction for giving award within a period of3 months .

Theworkman was given dates i.e. 12-9-2006, 20-3-2007 and 18-4-2007 for filing claim statement. The workman did not turn up . He has not filed claim statement . The opportunity of filing the claim was closed on 18-4-2007 .

No dispute award is given.

Dated: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1462.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० स्पाइसजेट लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012 /20/2006- आई.आर. ( सी एम- I ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1462. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 43/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, New Delhi - II , now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007 .

[No. L- 11012/20/2006- IR(CM - I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

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

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 43/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Rohtash Kumar,

C/o . The President, Bhartiya Shramjivi Sangh , CB-280, Ring Road , Naraina , NewDelhi -28 .

Versus

The General Manager , M/s. Spicejet Limited, Pl . No. 319, Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar , Gurgaon, Haryana.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/20/ 2006 [ IR ( CM - I ) ] Central Government dt . 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways/Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Rohtash Kumar w.e.f. 1-1-2002 isjust, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ? " It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006. There is direction for giving award within a period of 3 months .

The workmanwas given dates i.e. 12-9-2006, 20-3-2007 and 18-4-2007 for filing claim statement . The workman did not turn up . He has not filed claim statement . The opportunity of filing the claim was closed on 18-4-2007.

No dispute award is given..

Dated: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer 3248

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

का.. 1463.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० मोदीलुफ्ट/रॉयल एअरवेज/स्पाइसजेट लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 42/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -11012/ 6/2006- आई.आर. ( सी एम -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April, 2007

S.O. 1463. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 42/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , New Delhi - II , now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Modiluft/Royal Airways/Spicejet Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007 .

[No. L- 11012/6/2006- IR(CM - I ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT -II , NEW DELHI R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 42/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Baldev Singh , C/o Sh. Chhotu Ram , C/ o P L. Srivastava , CB-280 , Ring Road, Naraina , NewDelhi -28.

Versus

M/s. Modiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Limited, Cargo Complex, IGI Airport , Terminal - I , New Delhi -37.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/6 / 2006 [ IR ( CM - I ) ] Central Governmentdt . 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication :

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] The point runs as hereunder : -

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways /Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Baldev Singh w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is just , fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ? " It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006 . There is direction for giving award within a period of 3 months .

Theworkman was given dates i.e. 12-9-2006, 20-3-2007 and 18-4-2007for filing claim statement . The workman did not turn up . He has not filed the claim statement . The opportunity of filing the claim was closed on 18-4-2007.

No dispute award is given .

Date: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1464.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० स्पाइसजेट लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली- नं.- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -11012/16/2006- आई.आर. ( सीएम-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1464. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 41/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , New Delhi - II , now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007 .

[No. L - 11012/16/2006- IR(CM- I ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer I.D. No. 41/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Jai Kishan . C/ o The President , Bhartiya Shramjivi Sangh , CB -280, Ring Road . Naraina , New Delhi -28 .

Versus 3249

भारत का राजपत्र : मई19 , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

The General Manager,

M/s . Spicejet Limited, Pl . No. 319 , Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon , Haryana.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/16/ 2006 [ IR (CM - I ) ] Central Governmentdt. 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ Royal Airways /Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Jai Kishan w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ? " It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006. There is direction for giving award within a period of 3 months .

No dispute award is given .

Date : 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1465.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० स्पाइसजेट लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- नं.- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/18/2006- आई.आर. ( सीएम-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

S.O. 1465. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. 40/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , New Delhi - II , now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Spicejet Ltd.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007.

[No. L- 11012/ 18/2006- IR(CM - 1) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer 2324 G1/07-18

ANNEXURE

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

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 40/2006

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Jugat Kishore , C/ o The President, Bhartiya Shramjivi Sangh , CB-280, Ring Road , Naraina, New Delhi -28 .

Versus

The General Manager, M/s. Spicejet Limited, Pl. No. 319 , Phase- IV, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/ 18/ 2006 [ IR (CM - I ) ] Central Government dt . 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management ofModiluft/ Royal Airways / Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Jugat Kishore w.e.f. 1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ? " Ittranspires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006 . There is direction for giving award within a period of3 months .

Theworkman was given dates i.e. 12-9-2006, 20-3-2007 and 18-4-2007 for filing claim statement . The workman did not turn up . He has not filed claim statement. The opportunity of filing the claim was closed on 18-4-2007.

No dispute award is given .

Date: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2007

का.आ. 1466.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कैथे पैसिफिक एअरवेज लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई-1 के पंचाट (Comp . No. 5/ 2004/Arising out of Ref. No. 25/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20025/4/2007- आई.आर. ( सीएम-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी 3250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi, the 24th April , 2007

लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2006 ).को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -11012/4/2006- आई.आर. ( सीएम-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी S.O. 1466. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Comp . No. 5/ 2004/Arising out of Ref. No. 25/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Mumbai - I , now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cathey Pacific Airways Ltd. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-04-2007.

New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007 [No. L -20025 /4/2007 - IR( CM - I ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I AT MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S.O. 1467. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No.47/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, New Delhi - II , now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Royal Airways Ltd.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007 .

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer

[No. L- 11012/4 /2006 - IR(CM - I ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer COMPLAINT NO . CGIT-5 OF 2004 (Arising out of Reference No. CGIT-25 of 2003 )

ANNEXURE

All India Cathay Pacific Airways Employees ' Association , Mumbai

....Complainant

Versus

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , NEW DELHI Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. , Mumbai - 400 021

R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer

....Respondent

I.D. No. 47/2006

APPEARANCES :

IN THE MATTER OF :-

For the Complainant

ShriHarish ,

: Mr. M. B. Anchan , Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Das , Advocate Mumbai , datedthis the 10th day of April , 2007

S/o . Shri Ram Chander . C/ o . P. L. Srivastava , CB -280 , Ring Road , Naraina, NewDelhi -28

AWARD

Versus

M/s. Royal Airways Limited, Cargo Complex, IGI Airport, Terminal - 1 ,

New Delhi - 110037

AWARD

The instant complaint has been filed by All India Cathay Pacific Airways Employees ' Association , Mumbai through its President Mr. Kiran Pawaskar for setting aside theorder of transfer of Mr. Rajesh Kant to Delhi U/ s . 33 -A of Industrial Disputes Act . The matter came up for hearing today . Mr. Anchan , Advocate for the complainant states that the Complaint is not pressed.

Hence the Complaint is accordingly dismissed.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/4/ 2006- IR ( CM - 1 ) Central Governmentdt . 19-6-2006 has referred the following point for adjudication .

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer

The point runs as hereunder :--

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल , 2007

का.. 1467.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै० रॉयल एअरवेज

"Whether the action of the management of Modiluft/ RoyalAirways / Spicejet Limited in terminating the service of Shri Harish , S /o . Shri Ram Chander w.e.f.

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

3251 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

Respondent/ : Bank of Maharashtra, Through General

PartyNo. 2

1-1-2002 is just, fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date . "

Manager, Central Office , Lokmangal, 1501 , Shivaji Nagar, Pune -411005 .

AWARD

It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that reference is dated 19-6-2006. There is direction for giving award within a period of 3 months .

(Dated 13thApril , 2007)

The workman was given dates i.e. 12-9-2006, 20-3-2007 and18-4-2007 for filing claim statement . The workman did not turn up . He has not filed claim statement . The opportunity offiling the claim was closed on 18-4-2007.

No dispute award is given .

Date: 19-4-2007

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 अप्रैल, 2007

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Deepak Thantharate , Through General Secretary, Union of Maharashtra Bank Employees , 542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress Nagar, Nagpur Party No. 1 and Bank of Maharashtra, Through General Manager, Central Office , Lokmangal , 1501 , Shivaji Nagar , Pune , Party No. ? referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L- 12012 /448 / 91 - IR ( B - II ) dt . 29-04-1992 under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub-section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

का.आ. 1468.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ महाराष्ट्रा के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 106/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/448/91- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th April , 2007

2. " Whether the action of the management of Bank of Maharashtra in not acceding to the request of Shri Deepak Thantharate , Clerk of Bhanegaon Branch (MP) for transfer on compassionate grounds to Balaghat Branch (MP) even though his request has been registered by the Bank on 23-09-1985 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled ? "

S.O. 1468. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 106/2002 ) 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 Bank of Maharashtra and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-04-2007.

[No. L - 12012/448/91 - IR (B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A.N. YADAV , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 106/2002

Dated: 13-04-2007

Petitioner/ PartyNo. I

3. The claim has come for hearing before the court on 20-04-2006. Both the parties were present alongwith their counsels . They are heard the petitioner has challenged the action of the management in not accepting his request to transfer him to Balaghat Branch ( MP) on Compassionate Groundby an order Dt . 23-09-1995. On promotion he was transferred to some another place than his request and according to the petitioner this action was mala fide . However, when the claim up to hearing the considerabl time had been elapsed . The petitioner himself has filed a Pursis that now he is not interested in continuing the claim as well as in the transfer to Balaghat . He had requested to permit him to allow to withdraw the dispute unconditionally . Permission was granted him to allow considering the matter in respect of which the dispute was raised was of the year 1985 and at present it has no consequence . Hence now in view of the Pursis it can be inferred that now there are no disputes . The petitioner does not want to continue it . Hence , it is disposed of as dismissed for want of prosecution. Hence this no dispute award .

: Shri Deepak Thantharate , Through the General Secretary, Union of Maharashtra Bank Employees, 542, Dr. Munje Marg , CongressNagar , Nagpur -440012

Date: 13-4-2007

Versus

A.N. YADAV , Presiding Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3252

नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2007

का.आ. 1469. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी -2/ 35 ऑफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-4-2007 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14011/49/2000- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th April , 2007

S.O 1469. In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Reference No. CGIT-2/35 of 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-04-2007 .

[No. L- 14011 /49/2000- IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . II , MUMBAI PRESENT:

A.A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT - 2/35 of 2001 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF( 1 ) MILITARY FARM , KIRKEE (2) MILITARY FARM , DEOLAL

السنة (1 ) The Director , Military Farm, Southern Command Kirkee, Pune411003 (MS)

(2) The Officer - in -Charge, Military Farm , Deolali (MS)

Versus

Their Workmen

The General Secretary , Maitary Farm Employees Union COC.V. Marathe

Parijatak Plot No. 50 , Sainik Society, Darna Camp, Doolali Camp , Nasik 422 401

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

Forthe Employer : Mr. P. S. Gupta , Representative For the Workmen

: Mr. V. C. Prabhakaran Representative Mumbai , dated 28th March , 2007

AWARD

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 14011 /49/2000 - IR ( DU ) dated 09-02-2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Military Farm, Deolali in not regularising in the employment ofSh . Bandu Bahiru Wagh and 29 others ( as per list enclosed) is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief, the workman is entitled ? "

List of Names of workers :

1. Bandu Bahiru Wagh

2. Kacharu Hari Ghorpade

3. Parasharm Dharkaji Barde

4. Sharapjitsingh Buddhasingh

5. Maharajdin Shivdas Yadav

6. Houdaya Pitambar Yadav

7. Kishor Bihari Shergir

8. Makunda Punja More

9. Vishnu Balwant Samore

10. Ramkumar Lahari Kori

11. Mangesh Bhimrao More

12. Ramchandra Vishram Nisarat

13. Arun Bhimrao More

14. Manoj Tejram Shrivastav

15. Bajirao Santu Kunde

16. Sheikh Abdul Hussain

17. Trimbak Murlidhar Kunde

18. Rama Valu Kunde

19. Satish Panna Chandalia

20. Vitthal Tukaram Punde

21. Karbhari Sandu Kunde

22. Shankar Walu Kunde [ भाग II-खंड 3( ii ) ]

23. Vijay Kisan Gode

24. Rambir Inder Nhavi

25. Amarjeet Giri Bindagir

26. Thakur Dinshivdas Yadav

27. Narsingh Kheduprasad

28. Suresh Pandharinath Jadhav

29. Dharath Hari Khotade

30. Somnath Mahadeo Godse

2. Claim Statement is filed at Ex - 12 by the union stating that employees involved in the reference are appointed by the First Party . The work on which they are appointed is a perennial work. Just to deprive them in claiming permanency, they are falsely shown appointed on temporary basis . They are working with First Party prior to 1990. However they are not regularised under the pretext that, there is no vacancy and they cannot be regularised since they are the employees of the contractors. So it is submitted that , employees involved , in the reference be regularised in the establishment of the First party .

3. Thisis disputed by the First party by filing reply Ex- 19 stating that , employee involved in the reference are not engaged by the First Party . They are the employees of Contractor . They are not paid by the First Party but are paid by the Contractor . First Party has no regular work to engage these employees. Besides, there is ban on recruitment . Moreover these employees are the employees on the roster of contractor and cannot be regularised unless procedure of recruitment is followed. They are called as and when work is available . Their remuneration is paid by the contractor who pays it to the concerned employees . Since First Party cannot engage and appoint due to ban on recruitment, the prayer prayed by the union to regularise theworkmen involved in the reference have no meaning .

4. In view ofthese pleadings , issues were framed at Ex-28 which are answered as follows :

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Yes ( 1 ) Whether the action ofthe management of Military Farm Deolali in not regularising the employment of Shri Bandu Bahiru Wagh & 29 Ors . as mentioned in the list in their employment is legal and justified?

3253

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

Reasons

Issue No. 1

5. The action of the management in not regularising the employees involved in the reference is questioned by the Second Party union and treating said as a dispute, it is referred here for adjudication by Labour Ministry , Central Government.

6. The list of the workers annexed with reference and their working with First party prior to 1990 is not disputed. Second party union has examined some of the workmen out ofthem at Ex . -45 to 48. Besides , Second Party has examined the General Secretary of the Union at Ex . - 32. Whereas First Party has examined Prem Shankar Gupta at Ex. -64. All these witnesses admit that , workers involved in the reference are working at present with First Party and they are not regularised because there is ban of Central Government for recruitment . Even case is made out that , First Party is directed to engage employees through contractors by calling tenders . They were also instructed to accept lowertender and cost of that work is paid by First Party to the Contractor which he distributed among the workers . As far as this position is concerned , it is not disputed by both.

7. The stand taken by First Party is that, they cannot regularise these workmen since they are the employees of the contractors . It is the case of First Party that , they are attending work of First Party through contractor and contractor monitored and supervised their work . Since these workers are not under the control of First Party , they are not employees of it and as such they cannot be regularised . Another reason given by First Party is that, Rules and Regulations of recruitment are not followedby Contractor while sending these workmen to work for First Party. Even those are not followed by First Party when they were allowed to work through contractor and as such they cannot be regularised .

Asperorder

below

(2) What relief the above said persons are entitled to ?

8. As far as ban in the recruitment in the establishment of First Party is concerned, is not disputed by the Second Party . Even in all stages and even in cross examination to the workmen examined by Second Party as well as while submitting Written Statement and Written Argument. It is stand of the First Party that, due to sanction not given by Central Government , First Party cannot regularise these workmen . On this no remedy is shown by Second Party in what way First Party can be instructed to regularise these workmen when Central Government is not permitting First Party to appoint these workmen in its establishment ? Admittedly First Party is banned in recruiting the employees . Besides it is not brought on record how First Party can be directed to regularise these workmen when they are on the roster of contractor and when they were not interviewed and selected by the contractor by following recruitment rules ? When all these things are absent , then process of recruitment cannot be 3254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

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

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

REFERENCE NO . 03 OF 1998

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India.

AND

Theirworkmen .

Present : Mr. Justice C. P. Mishra Presiding Officer

Appearances :

: Mr. P. K. Dasgupta , Manager (P& IR)

Onbehalf of the

Management

Onbehalf of the

Workmen

confined only for the recruitment of these workmen . Said process must be made known to all . It must be open to all . There mustbe opportunity for all . There must be rules and regulations in selecting the candidates and they must be madeknown to all concerns . All these things are admittedly absentwhen these workmen were sent to the First Party by thecontractor. Only because they are working with First Party definitely they cannot claim employer- employee relationship with First Party . Unless and until First Party recruit themby following due process of law and till then , if at all , they are not regularised , then question will be different. Here admittedly workmen involved in the reference are not interviewed by the First Party. They were not selected by the First Party . Rules and Regulations of appointment were not followed by First Party while taking theseworkmen on work , since they are the workmen of the contractor. In that scenario it is not expected from the First Partyto regularise them. And all the while First Party saying that, there is ban in recruitment and there is no vacancy since posts are not created or sanctioned by the Central Government.

Mr. D.P. Chakraborty , member of the Working Committee , L.I.C. Employees' Association (Kolkata Division) .

State: West Bengal

9. Inview ofthis discussion , I conclude that, decision taken by First Party in not regularising the employees listed in the schedule cannot be declared not legal and not justified. So I answer above issue to that effect .

10. In view of discussion made above I conclude that referencedeserves to be rejected . Hence the order :

ORDER

Referende is rejected .

Dated:28-03-2007

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 अप्रैल, 2007

का. आ. 1470.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल.आई.सी.ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-4-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/59/1997- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] राजिन्द्रकुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 25th April , 2007

S.O. 1470. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Reference No. 3/1998 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Kolkata as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of LIC of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-04-2007 .

[No. L- 17012 / 59/ 1997 - IR( B - II ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

Industry : Banking Dated 19th April , 2007

AWARD

By Order No. L - 17012/59/ 97 - IR ( B - II ) dated 22nd January, 1998 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India in terminating the services of Shri Tarun Kumar Das w.e.f. 31-12-1994 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? "

2. This reference has been made at the instance of Shri Tarun Kumar Das the concerned workman . He happened to be a Peon in the office of LIC at Haldia Branch . Hewas dismissed from a service on the basis of the report of adomestic enquiry . From the statement of claims filed by him it appears that while he was working as a Peon in the cadre of Sepoy at Haldia Branch of LIC , on 20th February, 1992 a chargesheet was issued against him regarding defalcation of money arising out of disparity in the entries of the postal stamp register and the despatch register . According to the workman he had no conception of the disciplinary proceeding as he was educated upto Class- VIII only and was a Class - IV employees . So , on receipt of the chargesheet he approached his union i.e. , Howrah Division Insurance Employees ' Union and on the advice of his Association he got his reply prepared in which the charges were admitted and the same was forwardedto the authorities concerned . The management , thereafter , [ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/ वैशाख 29, 1929

3255 arranged a mock domestic enquiry and under the influence of the union leader and in the belief that he will be saved from punishment , he admitted the charges before the Enquiry Officer also , but subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 31-12-1994 . Thereafter , he also preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager and later submitted a memorial to the Chairman of the LIC , but his prayers were refused and the punishment became final. It is alleged that nothing was explained to him clearly and he had acted on the advice of the union people and under the impression thatby admitting his guilt, he will ve pardoned . So far as the enquiry report is concerned , he has challenged the same on the ground that it was held against the principles of natural justice and neither any evidence was produced by the management, nor any opportunity was afforded to him to defend himself. It is further alleged that the action of themanagement of LIC is bad, illegal, unjustified and invalid. The workman accordingly prayed that he be reinstated in service after declaring the disciplinary proceeding held against him as vitiated and exonerating him from the charges.

21-4-1994 again the said workman made appeal to the Senior Divisional Manager, Howrah Division with a prayer to transfer him from Haldia to Coritai Branch while the charge was pending against him. On receipt of the reply to the chargesheet the then Senior Divisional Manager arranged for a domestic enquiry into the matter by appointing one Mr. M. B. Mukherjee as the Enquiry Officer by order dated 3-2-1994 and the order was also communicated through the Enquiry Officer to the said workman asking him to participate in the enquiry. The date of enquiry was fixed on 9-5-1994 in the office of the Senior Branch Manager , Haldia. The workman appeared, attended and participated in the enquiry. One Shri Uttam Kumar Badya was appointed Presenting Officer by the management and when the Enquiry Officer read out the charges and explained it to him in vernacular , the workman concerned admitted the charges and thereafter the Enquiry Officer did not think it necessary to proceed with the formalities of the enquiry. Accordingly, the proceeding was submitted to the competent authority who on perusal of the report passed the order of punishment of his dismissal from service against which the workman filed appeal to the Senior Divisional Manager and when his appeal was dismissed, he also filed a memorandum to the Chairman . But, both the appeal and the memorandum were dismissed and rejected. It issubmitted on behalf of the management that so far as the validity of the enquiry is concerned, the entire allegations of the workman is false and incorrect and since the workman had himself admitted the charge there was no necessity of examining witness , nor the workman ever asked for examining any witness or production of documents before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore , the allegation in this regard is false and baseless and a prayer is also made that thismatter be enquired into first . It is alleged that the termination of the concerned workman from service was just and fair and the reference is not maintainable . It is prayed that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

4.ThisTribunal held a preliminary hearing in respect ofthe legality and validity of the enquiry proceeding and on consideration of the materials available on records vide order dated 9-1-2002 held that the enquiry is valid and legal . Thereafter the matter was fixed for hearing the parties regarding adequacy of punishment inflicted upon the concerned workman and the parties were accordingly heard.

3. The management also filed a written statement in reply and challenged everything stated in the statement of claims of the workman . It has been stated on behalfofthe management that from the very beginning of his service career the workman concerned was not maintaining good moral character and complaints were often heard against him regarding his misconduct . However, on 28-3-1994 and 19-4-1994 the Corporation received some petitions with the allegations that the workman Tarun Kumar Das had stolen money of the colleagues and they requested the management to transfer him to some other place so that they would rid of him . It is also stated that prior to the present incident also the said workman had committed misappropriation and chargesheeted by the Corporation on the basis of the detection of such misappropriation by audit. The investigation was also made on its basis and a sum of Rs . 9835 meant for purchase of postal stamp was found misappropriated and was recovered from him . It is also stated that at the relevant time the workman was attached to the despatch department and he was entrusted with the work of purchasing postage stamps and pasting stamps on the mails and made necessary entries in the books . It is stated further that on the basis of the investigation report a chargesheet was framed on 20-2-1992 and he was served to Shri Tarun Kumar Das . The charges contained five heads . Thereafter , the workman submitted his reply to the charges through his letter dated 10-4-1992 and admitted the charges against him with appeal to take sympathetic view. It is stated that the workman had submitted a letter before the Manager, Haldia Branch on 1-7-1991 stating therein that he had retained some stamps without pasting them on the letters concerned but he could not trace those stamps and so he was ordered to deposit theconcerned amount of Rs . 2268 on 15-2-1993 . He replied to the above charge and admitted the allegations . On

5. Ext. W- 1 is the chargesheet dated 20-2-1992 issued to the workman concerned . The allegation against the workman is that while was working in Despatch Section of Haldia Branch he had defalcated a total sum of Rs . 9835 meant for purchase of postage stamps and five specific instances have been indicated in the said chargesheet . Four other allegations are also there regarding false entries in the Despatch Register and also regarding improper maintenance of the Despatch Register and Postage Account Register. He was thus charged for breach of 3256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Regulations 21 and 24 read with Regulation 39 ( 1 ) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India ( Staff) Regulations , 1960. It is also indicated therein that the concerned workman is liable for the penalties specified under Regulation 39 ( 1 ) ( a) to ( g ) of the said Regulations .

7. It has been submitted by the representative of the workman however in this connection to take a lenient view in the matter as the alleged admission of guilt was under some misconception that a sympathetic view would be taken and he being a Class - IV employee not acquainted with the nature of work entrusted to him and that he did not do this act intentionally . It is also submitted on his behalfthat in fact he was a victim of conspiracy to rope him by other colleagues of his department and taking advantage of his simplicity and innocence he had been falsely implicated in this case . Management , however, has denied this aspect of defence taken by the workman and has also referred to Clause I ( 1 ) ( i ) to Clause I ( 1 ) (xi ) of the Establishment Manual of LIC wherein the duties of a Peon with the regard to postage and mails are mentioned to be there as under :

" I. DUTIES OF PEONS

1. The main duties of a peon in the Corporation Officeswould include the following :-

(viii) Affixing stamps , sticking or sealing envelopes orwrappers , typing of packets or packing up of parcels etc.

(ix) Operation of Franking Machines .

(x) Despatch and/ or hand delivery of letters and taking cash etc. to Banks .

(xi) Any other work of similar nature which the officer- in-charge instructs to peon to carry out. "

Apart from the above duties so mentioned in the manual for this it is also evident that the workman concerned overall had a duty to perform his work and carry on instructions given to him with his full devotion and integrity and there can be no excuse for committing any fraud or misappropriation of the money or property so entrusted to him while performing his duty as such in this regard . Had it been a case of mere negligence or had it been a case of mere lack of sufficient knowledge to do the said particular workwhich was so entrusted to him a lenient view possibly could have been taken against him . However , in this case as the charge goes against him he has not only misappropriated certain postage stamps but also to have made overwriting and had also committed fraud by withholding the amount and stamps in order to misappropriate them for his own personal gain which as such goes to show not a bonafide mistake or negligence on his part but it shows an intentional lack of integrity of theworkman for committing misappropriation of money of the Corporation for which there can be no excuse . The enquiry proceedings so conducted against him vide Ext . W- I (b) goes to show that full opportunity was given to him to defend himself but , he actually admitted them and 6. On the perusal of the aforesaid facts and submissions made by the parties it is evident that the workman concerned was working as a Peon at Haldia Branch of LIC and the management on receiving complaints against him had got the matter enquired regarding misappropriation of cash for purchase of pastage stamps and as a result of investigation made a sum of Rs . 9835 for purchase of postage stamps was found misappropriated . It isalso evident that admittedly the workman was attached to the despatch department and he was entrusted with the work of purchasing postage stamps and pasting stamps on mails and thereby made entries in the books for the purpose . The charges were framed for the said offence against him and in reply to that the workman had submitted his regret by admitting the charges with appeal to take sympathetic view against him. Earlier to this he had alsó sought time to trace out some missing stamps without pasting them on the mails concerned and in this connection he was also ordered to deposit a sum of Rs . 2268. In this connection the enquiry which was conducted against him bythe management the workman had admittedly appeared and attended and participated in the enquiry before the EnquiryOfficer who had read out the charges and explained itto him in vernacular . The concerned workman had also personally admitted the charges so framed therein . The enquiry proceeding in the matter vide Ext. W- 1 (b ) itself goes to show that the Enquiry Officer had put specific questions regarding the purchase of postage stamps by him and regarding the misappropriation of various amounts and also about his having made entries thereof in the postage accounts register for the same . A specific question wasalso put to him by the Enquiry Officer as to whether he had misappropriated a sum of Rs . 5902 worth of stamps by making entries ofthe same against multiple policy numbers in the Despatch Register so as to inflate the total amount ofconsumption to which he had admitted the same showing the amounts so misappropriated by him and to have made false entry in the record for the same. Besides that he had also admitted his overwriting made by him to inflate the amount of consumption . Further , he had also admitted to have made false entries by way of writing imaginary and fancy names in the despatch register to defraud the Corporation with the cost of stamps involved. In view of theaforesaid fact it is very much evident that the workman whowas served with the chargesheet dated 20-2-1992 , Ext . W- 1 to have been found to have defalcated a sum of Rs.9835 meant for purchase of postage stamps . The charges were also there against him that he not only made overwriting but had also made false entries writing imaginary and fancy names in the despatch register to defraud the Corporation.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3157

भारत का राज़पत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

अनुसूची

जिला: अहमदनगर मंडल/तहसील/तालुक: जामखेड

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र आर ओ यु अर्जित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर / गट नंबर

गांव का नाम

526 1) जवळा

527

528

529

530

सीएयर

हेक्टेयर

एयर

गाव सीमा के पास गाडी रास्ता

2) पोटेवाडी

135

136

137

118

138

140

147

146

145 00

गट नंबर 144 और 145 के बीचका

रास्ता

144

153

155

156

157

168

169

170

167

171

172

171 .

3) नान्नंज

172

461

462

471

467

470

659 2324 GJ/07-19

36.

28'

03 3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA29, 1929

660

00 3) नान्नंज (निरंतर...)

662

657

656

653

665

649

666

00 .

667

811

812

813

00 (PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) )

गट नंबर 807 और 819 के बीच का

रास्ता

807

819

820

806

856

857

00 06

गट नंबर 857 और 887 के बीच का

नाला

887

886

864

972

974

973

975

00 01

गट नंबर 975 और 982 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

982

983

966

1057

1059

1060

1061

1056

1055

00 01

71.

गट नंबर 1054 और 1066 के बीच का

नाला

1054

1066

00 00

गट नंबर 1054 और 1066 के बीच का

गाडी रास्ता

1065

01 02

66 3259 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

For the Management : Sri Pramod Kumar Thakur, Advocate

For the Workman : Sri Satyendra Krishna Prasad , Advocate

the workman of Eastern Railway. Neither notice , notice pay nor compensation was paid to the workman before retrenchment and as such his termination from service was but illegal retrenchment . The workman claims that he be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

PRESENT :

Vasudeo Ram, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna

AWARD

Patna, dated the 18th April , 2007.

By adjudication order No. L-41012/ 132/2001 - IR(B- I ) dated 18-3-2002, the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has referred under clause ( d) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub-Section (2 -A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the following dispute between the management of Eastern Railway, Fairly Palace, Kolkata and their workman Sri Narendra Kumar Singh to this Tribunal for adjudication on the following:

"Whether the claim of Sri Narendra Kumar Singh , Contract Labour of M/ S . Purvanchal Caterers that he became the employee of Principal Employer i.e. Eastern Railway is justified ? If so , whether the action of the Eastern Railway in terminating the services of Sri Narendra Kumar Singh w.e.f. 10-6-1997 is justified ? ifnot what relief he is entitled ? "

3. The contention of the management is that the Indian Railways since past has been providing food etc. to its travelling passengers in trains through pantry car for which the Railway authorities used to invite applications from general public having experience in catering services for granting contract for pantry car . Accordingly the Railway invited applications from eligible contractors for providing catering services in Pantry Car of Shramjivi Express running between Patna Junction and New Delhi in the year 1992. Among the bidders M/s . Purvanchal Caterers was selected and an agreement between M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers and the Railway was entered into on 23-7-1992 . In the agreement the railway fixed certain terms and conditions withregard to the employee's medical fitness . In the whole agreement there was no clause with regard to the service conditions of the employees engaged by the contractor . The contractor itself was whole and sole responsible for its employees ' engagement, termination of services and other working conditions . The contention of the management is that Sri Narendra Kumar Singh was engaged by M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers according to its own terms and conditions . Sri Narendra Kumar Singh was not engaged by the Railway nor Shri Singh was the employee of the Railway . Shri Singh was not paid the wages by the Railways , hence there was no question of termination of his services by the Railways . Since Shri Singh was not under the employment of Railways the question of Registeration of Eastern Railway under Section 7 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 (hereinafter to be called ' the Act ' for brevity) is not required. According to the management if the contract between M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers and the Railway was not legal and valid none aggrieved by the said contract is legally entitled to any relief from any Court of Law . Further the contention of the management is that since there was no relationship of employer and employee between M/ s . Eastern Railway and Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, no direction to M/ s . Eastern Railway to absorb Mr. Singh can legally be given. Under the circumstances , according to M/ s. Eastern Railway Shri Narendra Kumar Singh is not entitled to the claims made it by him in the case .

4. Upon the pleadings of the parties and the terms ofreference the following points arise out for decision :

( 1) Whether the claim of Shri Narendra Kumar Singh , Contract Labour of M/ s . Purvanchal Cateters that he became the employee of principal employer i.e. Eastern Railway is justified?

2. The parties appeared on notice and filed their respectivewritten statements, the workman on 16-12-2003 and the management on 8-1-2004 . The contention of the workman is that he worked as a Sales- in- charge in the Pantry Carof Jayanti Janata Express from 1-2-1981 to 26-3-1984 continuously through M/s . Singh Caterers and Venders . In 1984 Eastern Railway terminated his services . He was again employed in the Pantry Car ofShramjivi Express w.e.f. 24-7-1992 through M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers . On 10-6-1997 his services were abruptly terminated by the Eastern Railway without any reason and without making payment of compensation. During the period 24-7-1992 to 10-6-97 Eastern Railway was not Registered under Section 7 ofthe Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and Purvanchal Caterers was also not having any Licence under Section 12 of the said Act . Hence there was no legal and valid contract exisiting between Eastern Railway and M /s .: Purvanchal Caterers as is contemplated by Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970. The so called contract between them was not genuine and real in absence of the compliance of Sections 7 and 12 of that Act . The workman contends that he worked continuously from 24-7-1992 to 10-6-1997 under the sham and invalid contract . The workman further contends that he was engaged by Eastern Railway through M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers and since there was no legal valid and real contract exisiting between Eastern Railway and M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers in the eyes of has he ( Narendra Kumar Singh ) would be deemed to be

2324G1/07-20.

[PART II --SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 3260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29, 1929

(ii) Whether the services of Shri Narendra Kumar Singh was terminated by Eastern Railway ? If so, whether was that action justified ?

Manager of Railway . This document is irrelevant for the purpose ofdecision of this case . I may recall that medical fitness of the persons working under the contractor was compulsory as per the agreement entered into between the Railway and M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers .

(iii) To what relief or reliefs Shri Narendra Kumar Singh is entitled ?

FINDINGS

Point No. ( i) :

7. Shri Narendra Kumar Singh claims to have become the employee of M's . Eastern Railway , the principal employer on the ground that niether Eastern Railway was registered under Section 7 nor M /s . Purvanchal Caterers were having licence under Section 12 of ' the Act ' . Section 7 of ' the Act' is as follows :

"( 1 ) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall , within such period as appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class ofthem, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establishment:

Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.

(2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects , the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed. " The effect of non- registration has been dealt with under Section 9 of the Act ' as follows :

"No principal employer of an establishment, to which thisAct applies , shall-

5. The management has not adduced any evidence on its behalf. The workman Shri Narendra Kumar Singh alone has deposed on his behalf. He has filed certain documents also which have been marked Exhibit . Shri Narendra Kumar Singh ( W.W.1 ) has stated that he was Sales- in-Charge in Pantry Car of Jayanti Janata Express Train. He has stated that Chief Commercial Manager , North Eastern Railway had appointed him . But has not filed any appointment letter in support of the same. He claimsto haveworked on that post from 1981 to 1984. He has proved the photocopy of list of as many as 26 persons including himself ( Ext. W) who as per his statement worked in Pantry Car of Jayanti Janata Express Train. He has also proved the photocopy of Railway Pass ( Ext . W/ 1 ) granted to them by the railway for travelling in Jayanti Janata Express from Barauni Jr. to New Delhi and back . He has also proved the photocopy ofCertificate (Commendation letter) granted to him by the Train Superintendent of Jayanti Janata Express train ( Ext W/ 2 ) . I may mention here that the aforesaid evidence adduced on behalf of the workman relate to his working in the Pantry Car of Jayanti Janata Express Train underM/s Singh Caterers and Vendors arıd not in Shramjivi Express under M /s . Purvanchal Caterers . This reference is with regard to his working in the Pantry Car of Shramjivi Express Train . His case is that he was again i.e. after termination ofhis service in 1984, employed in the Pantry Car of Shramjivi Express w.e.f. 24-7-1992 through M/s. Purvanchal Caterers and the terms of reference also speaks of his working under M/s . Purvanchal Caterers and through it he claim to have become the employee of Principal Employeri.e . M/s . Eastern Railway.

(a) in the case of an establishment required to be registered under Section 7, but which has not been registered within the time fixed for the purpose under the section;

(b) in the case of an establishment the registration in respect ofwhich has been revoked under Section 8, employ contract labour in the establishment after the expiry of the period referred to in clause ( a ) of after the revocation of registration referred to in clause (b) as the case may be ."

Section 12 of ' the Act' runs as follows :-

"Licensing of contractors ( 1 ) with effect from such date as the appropriate Government may , by notification in the Official Gazette , appoint , no contractor to whom this Act applies , shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalfby the licensing officer .

6. From perusal of statement of claim filed by Shri Narendra Kumar Singh and also from the terms of reference it is apparent that Shri Singh was the contract Labour of M/s . Purvanchal Caterers . M /s . Purvanchal Caterers were running the catering services in the Pantry Car of Shramjivi Express Train under an agreement with the Railways . Yet Shri Narendra Kumar Singh (W.W.1 ) in his statement before this Tribunal has stated that he was appointed by the Railway and Railway paid wages to him . There is no supporting evidence , either oral or docurnentary to support thesame . Hence the said statement of Shri Narendra Kumar Singh that he was employed by Railway and Railway paid him the wages cannot be accepted. Shri Narendra Kumar Singh has filed the photocopy of medical fitness certificate (Ext . W/3) though in his statement before this Tribunal he (W.W.I) called it an identify card issued by the Divisional 3261 [ भाग II- खंड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29 , 1929

ShriNarendra Kumar Singh was not terminated by Eastern Railway and Shri Narendra Kumar Singh is not entitled to any reliefclaimed for.

12. This is my award.

VASUDEO RAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2007

का.आ. 1472.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दक्षिण रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, एर्नाकुलम, कोची के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 177/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act , a licence under sub - section ( 1 ) may contain such conditions including in particular conditions as to hours ofwork, fixation of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with the rules , if any , made under Section 35 and shall be issued on payment of such fees and on the deposit of such sum , if any , as security for the due performance ofthe conditions as may be prescribed." From the abovementioned provisions it can not be inferred that the effect of non -registration of principal employer and the non - licensing of contractor under ' the Act' would be that the contract labour would be deemed to be the employee of principal employer . Under the circumstances discussed above I find and hold that the claim of Shri Narendra Kumar Singh that he has become the employee of Principal employer is not justified . This pointis accordingly decided in negative .

[सं. एल-41012/138/98 - आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th May, 2007 Point No. ( ii) :

S.O. 1472. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.177/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam , Kochi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2007.

[No. L-41012/ 138/98 - IR(B- I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL 8. Shri Narendra Kumar Singh ( W.W.1 ) has stated that he worked in the Pantry Car of Shramjivi Express from 1992 and his services was terminated in June , 1997. He has not stated as to who terminated his services . I have already discussed above that Shri Singh has produced no evidence to show that he was appointed/employed by Eastern Railway . Shri Singh was a Contract Labour under the employment of M/ s . Purvanchal Caterers . The contention ofEastern Railway is that Shri Singh was not appointed by the Railway and hence the question of his termination from the services by the Railway does not arise . Under the circumstances discussed above I find that the services of Shri Narendra Kumar Singh was not terminated by the Eastern Railway . This point is accordingly decided.

Point No. (iii)

TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM PRESENT:

Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday the24th day ofApril , 2007/4th Vaisakha, 1929) I.D. No. 177/2006 (I.D. 9/1999 of Labour Court, Ernakulam) 9. Shri Narendra Kumar Singh (W.W.1 ) has proved the photocopy of identity card of one Sayeed Ahmed and the photocopy of appointment letter ( Ext. W/4 and W/ 5 respectively ) to show that a few persons who worked with him in the Pantry Car of Jayanti Janata Express have subsequently been employed by the Railway . No evidence has been adduced on behalf of Shri Singh as to on what basis the said appointments have been made . Hence the said exhibites are irrelevant for the decision ofthis reference .

Workman/Union : The General Secretary Dakshin Railway Casual Labour Union Edappally, Kochi-24.

..... Adv . Shri C. Anil Kumar

Management

10. Keeping in view the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs and the decisions arrived at on point Nos . (i) and ( ii ) above I find that Shri Narendra Kumar Singh isnot entitled to any relief claimed for . This point is answered accordingly.

: The Dy. Chief Signal and TelecomEngineer, RailwayElectrification, Thrissur.

..... Adv. Shri M. C. Cherian 11. In the result I find and hold that the claim of Shri Narendra Kumar Singh , Contract Labour of M/s . Purvanchal Caterers that he became the employee of Principal employer i.e. Eastern Railway is not justified. The services of 3262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

AWARD

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

"Whether the action on the part of the Dy . Chief Signalling and Telecommunication Engineer, Railway Electrification , Southern Railway , Trichur in terminating the services of Shri M. Thangavelu with effect from 1-2-1995 is justified ? If not, to what relief ishe entitled ? "

2. The reference is regarding legality of termination of service of casual labourer in Railway . Though both sides entered appearance and filed their pleadings when the matter came up for evidence the worker remained absent . Hence the matter could not be proceeded with. The reference was made in 1999. There is no point in keeping the case pending indefinitely . In the circumstances I find thatthe worker is not interested in the matter and hence there is no subsisting dispute for adjudication .

3. In the result, an award is passed finding that the action of the management Railway in terminating the service ofworker , Shri M. Thangavelu w.e.f. 1-2-1995 is legal and justified. No cost .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 24th day ofApril , 2007.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer..

APPENDIX: NIL

नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2007

का.आ. 1473.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को4-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/ 5/2006- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th May , 2007

S.O. 1473. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (23/2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofNorthern Railway and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 4-5-2007.

[No. L- 12025/5/2006 - IR( B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Shrikant Shukla , Presiding Officer

1. D. No. 23/2006

Ref. No. L- 12025 / 5/2006 - IR (B - I) dated : 11-9-2006

BETWEEN

1. Shri Saidur Rehman Running Shed Road Colony LD 14- A Tedhipulia Alambagh -226005 ( UP) Lucknow .

2. The Zonal President Uttar Railway Karmachari Union 96/196, Reshan Bajaj Lane , Ganesh Ganj Lucknow (UP).

AND

1. The Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer Northern Railway, Hazratganj Lucknow.

2. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissisoner ( C) Shram Bhawan , ATI Campur , Udhyog Nagar Kanpur-208022 ( UP) .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L - 12025 / 5 / 2006 - IR (B - I) dated : 11-9-2006 has referred following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer , Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication .

"Whether as per the award in reference ( ID No. 56 of 1986) the workman Shri Saidur Rehman is entitled to back wages seniority and other benefits for the period from the date of his termination to the date of his reinstatement by Railway Admn . i.e. 4-9-81 to 22-4-88 ."

Trade Union has filed its statement of claim and the management has filed written statement.

During the course of proceedings the trade union filed C- 15, application for summoning documents and the opposite party filed objection . C - 18 against the said application .

During the course of proceedings the trade union admitted that it has no dispute regarding payment of back wages to the worker . Saidur Rehman from 4-9-81 to 22-4-88 and, therefore , the case may be disposed of as no claim award.

In the interest of justice the statement of the trade union representative Sh . Parvez Alam is recorded which is [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii ) ]

paper No. A - 19 . Since there remains no dispute and the trade union has requested for disposal of case as no claim award . Therefore , no claim award is passed accordingly .

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer Lucknow 23-4-2007

नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2007

का.आ. 1474.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिमी रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-41011/13/97- आई.आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th May, 2007

S.O. 1474.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2006) ` ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court- 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Western Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2007 .

[No. L-41011/ 13/97- IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT :

A.A. Lad , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -2/53 of 2006 (Old Ref. CGIT- 2/94 of 1997)

Employers in relation to the management of Western Railway, Mumbai Central The Division Railway Manager (E) ,

Western Railway, Bombay Division ,

Bombay Central

Mumbai-400 008

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

TheDivision Secretary,

Paschim Railway karamchari Parishad, 32A, Chhapra Building , 1st floor, R.K. Vaidya Marg, Near Plaza Cinema, Dadar(W) , Mumbai 400 028 .

23246 / 5-21

3263

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19 , 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

APPEARANCES :

: Ms. Delilah Feranandes Advocate FortheEmployer

For the Workmen : Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate

Mumbai , Dated the 10th April , 2007

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo. L-41011 / 13 /97/IR (B- I ) dtd. 13-11-1997 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of DRM , Bombay Division , Western Railway in terminating the services of Shri Zahid Ali is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. Zahid Ali Wahidali (hereinafter referred as the workman) pleaded that , his meternal uncle Mohd. Hafeez Sheikh was a Railway servant working in the Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Mumbai. He wanted his daughter to be married withthe workman . He therefore arranged ajob for the worker in the Railways . After some days the marriage could not work properly . The workman divorced the daughter of Shaikh . Being aggrieved by that, he made a complaint to the Railways contending that the workman gave a false date ofbirth while getting the employment .

3. The workman averred that , he received a chargesheet from the Railway contending that he produced forged certificates dated 14-9-75 of M.S.I. College , Gorakhpur showing his date of birth as 5-6-63 at the time of his appointment to enable him to get appointment as a casual labour as otherwise he would not have been eligible . Hisdate ofbirth is 2-10-59 on the basis ofthe High School Certificate submitted by him . Thus he is held responsible for lack of absolute integrity and has violated Rule 3.1 ( i ) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966.

4. The workman averred that a domestic inquiry which was conducted against him was against the principlesof natural justice . He was not provided with the documents relied upon . It is submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are one sided. The workman pleaded that the alleged certificate was not given by him but it was given by his uncle . It is further pleaded that even if it is said that at the time of getting the employment his date of birth was 2-10-59 , he was below 28 years of age . It is therefore cannot be said that, he was not entitled to employment atthat age . It is submitted that , he only came to know regarding the production of the incorrect birth certificate when the vigilance recorded his statement on thecomplaint ofhis father- in - law. It is further pleaded that , for engaing casual labour nobody asked for birth certificate by him is totally incorrect . For all these reasons it is submitted that the inquiry which was conducted against him was against the principles of natural justice .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007/VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3264

REASONS

Point No. 1 :

5. The workman averred that , his termination is illegal . He pleaded that the termination may be set aside and he may be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity in service .

This is third round of litigation in this Court and total fifth round of the entire proceeding , since it went twice beforeHon'ble High Court , Bombay and thrice before this Tribunal .

6. The management resisted the clain by the written statement ( Ex - 7 ) . It is averred that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference . It is submitted that, the management appointed S.B. Patwardhan as the Inquiry Officer. While conducting the enquiry , the Inquiry Officer followed the priniciples of natural justice. It is averred that the Inquiry Officers report was duly considered by the disciplinary authority and appropriate punishment was awarded to the workman . It denied all other contentions taken by the workman in his statement of claim. It is submitted that , the workman is not entitled to any reliefs.

9. At this stage only limited scope to consider is upper age limit of recruitment in 1985 with Management . Onthat workman has stated that 28 years is the age limit for Group D category in the recruitment rules of the Management . Even witness examined by management at Ex-48 admits that, and categorically states that age 18 to 28 wasconsidered for recruitment for Grade D staff i.e. class IV staff and second party was of 22 years old when appointed in category IV i.e. in Group D. This evidence referred above categorically proves that age 18 to 28 was the age applicable in 1985 in the recruitment rules of the management . Besides it is admitted by the management that workman was of 22 years when recruited by management .

7. Issues framed at Ex- 10 . Out of those issues 1 to 3 aredecided as preliminary issues observing enquiry was not as per principles of natural justice and findings were perverse by passing Part - I awarddt . 10-8-99 . Then management applied for leading evidence by Ex - 16 which was not allowed . Order dt . 17-11-99 passed on Ex - 16 and Part- I award was challenged by WP No. 74 of 2000 by the management. While deciding said Hon'ble High Court by orderdt. 11-2-2000 permitted Management to justify its. action maintaining order passed in Part - I award . Then evidence is lead and my predecessor by passing award Part- 11 dated 6-12-2001 observed on remaining issues i.e. action taken by the Management oftermination and charges levelled against workman are justified noting workman is not entitled to any relief. Said award was challenged by filing WP No. 3111 of 2002 and was disposed of by Hon'ble HighCourt by order dt . 4-10-2005 remanding matter back to Tribunal to decide "what was the upper age limit of recruitment in 1985 " by giving opportunity to both . And accordingly evidence was lead by both i.e. by workman by filing affidavit at Ex- 46 andby management by filing affidavit at Ex - 48 .

8. In view ofthis situation following points arise for determination:

28 years

1. What was the upper age limit in the recruitment rules ofmanage- ment in 1985 ?

No.

2. In that back ground whether Management proved that charges levelled against workman are proved ?

No.

3. Whether management justify in taking action of termination ?

4. What order ?

10. Under impression that workman was of over age , to hide that charge was levelled against him that he filed false certificate to qualify him to get an employment. There were two certificates allegedly produced by the workman , one ofthem was of Certificate of MSI College , Gorakhpur showing birth date 5-6-63 and School Leaving Certificate of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad showing birth date 2-10-59 . In fact both certificates are shown two different birth dates . In fact, School Leaving Certificate must refer the birth certificate and mention the date of birth which is mentioned in the birth certificate . Here what happened in School Leaving Certificates birth date is shown 2-10-59 whereas birth date 5-6-63 is shown in MSI College Certificate .Naturally the source of information about birth date must be on birth date certificate . The explanation tried to given by workman about the birth date given in Certificate of MSI College as 5-6-63 is that it was written by the staff and might have given relying on the information supplied by his father in law . Here I think we are not concerned which of them is genuine and which is false one .Management accepted both certificates and case of the management is that to facilitate workman to secure employment with management bogus cetificate of MSI college, Gorakhpur was filed showing his birth date 5-6-63. Asargued by the workman's Advocate Shri Anchan , even ifwe considered both certificates and naturally first one which bears birth date 2-10-59 , it does not exceed the upper age limit of recruitment and as per that his age was 26when he recruited as per the birth date 2-10-59 . When he was within 28 years and even as per certificate where birth date is2-10-59 question arises what importance required to give to the School Leaving Certificate and allegedly certificate obtained of MSI College , Gorakhpur which showed birth date 5-6-63 ? When workman was eligible

As per orderbelow .

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

3265

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

and qualified and within age limit as per his birth date 2-10-59 there is no reason for him to have a forged birth certificate to qualify him to secure recruitment and to show within age of 28 years ? All this reveals that , workman was well within age as upper age limit of recruitment in 1985 was 28 years . Accordingly I answer this point to that effect.

Point Nos . 2 and 3 :

11. Workman succeeded in showing that upper age limit of recruitment with management in 1985 was 28 years and he was below that age limit when recruited. In my considered view the charge sheet issued by management alleging that workman has procured bogus birth certificate to facilitate him to enroll in the employment of the management has no meaning . The intention of workman was to bring himself within the age limit of recruitment . The age limit of recruitment was 28 years and birth date 2-10-59 and even 5-6-63 does not show that, he crossed it and was over agedwhen recruited . When the subject matter of over age incase of workman does not arise , in my considered view chagesheeting workman for that has no meaning and was infact unwarranted decision taken by management . So I conclude that, issuing chargesheet on workman alleging that, he committed misconduct by supplying false birth date has no meaning . I also conclude that , the enquiry conducted was not at all warranted and vis - a - vis there was no propriety in taking findings from Inquiry Officer . So I conclude that, action taken by management in terminating workman on false ground is notjust and proper and cannot be maintained .

12. In view of discussion made above I conclude that impugned termination served on Zahidali is not legal andjustified. Hence the order:

ORDER

(i) Reference is allowed .

(ii) Impugned order of termination is set aside directingManagement to reinstate Second Party Workman Zahidali on his post and give benefits ofbackwages as well as continuity of service from the date of alleged termination .

( iii) In the said circumstance , there is no order as to cost.

Dated: 10-4-2007

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 मई, 2007

का.आ. 1475.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बस्तर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/87 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2007 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12012/205/85 - आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th May, 2007

S.O. 1475. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 35/87) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on4-5-2007 .

[No. L - 12012/205 /85 - IR(B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/35/87

Shri C. M. Singh , Presiding Officer Shri Bhajendra Nath Mathew , Resident ofVillage Kasturi , PO Nagarnar , Tehsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar.

Workman/Union

Versus

TheChairman,

Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hatkachora, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar .

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of April , 2007 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/205 /85 - IR(B - I ) dated 16th April, 1987 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by thistribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jagdalpur in terminating the services of Shri Bhajendra Nath Mathew, clerk, w.e.f. 1-10-83 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the workmanconcerned entitled ? "

2. The case of workman Shri B.N. Mathew in brief is as follows . That he was working as clerk - cum- cashier at Dhanpunji Branch of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in the year 1983. He wrote a letter dated 29-7-1983 to the Chairman, Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Jagdalpur whereby he [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19, 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

3266

hisown request on 30-9-1983 and absented himself from duty. The workman thereupon submitted to the Branch Manager a letter dated 19-10-83 stating that he is withdrawing his resignation and is reporting on duty. The Branch Manager immediately forwarded the letter to the Head office for further action . Workman Shri Mathew on hisown attended the Branch on 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 but was not officially given charge by the Branch Manager . Upon receiving instructions from Head office vide memo dated 21-10-1983 , workman Shri Mathew should not be allowed to join till decision is taken on his letter dated 29-7-83 , he was stopped from even sitting in the Branch . Thus the workman cannot be said to have worked from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 which fact is further proved on the basis ofhis own letter dated 11-11-1983 wherein he admitted that he has not been allowed to join after 30-9-1983 till date . Persuant to his representation , the management informed him vide memo dated 1-5-85 that his resignation has already beenaccepted and he has been relieved from branch w.e.f. 30-9-1983 . Consequently now the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Workman Shri Bhajendra Nath Mathew in order to prove his case examined himself. The management in order to defend the reference proceeding examined their witness Shri Tarachand Panigrahi , the then posted as Area Manager, Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Area Office, Kanker (Chhattisgarh).

5. Both the parties have also filed certain Photostat copiesofthe documents . They may be referred in the body ofthis award where the need be .

6. 1 have heard Shri Vijay Tripathi, Advocate the learned counsel for workman and Shri Ashis Shorti , Advocate the learned cousel for management . I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record .

submitted his resignation from service due to some personal problem . It was mentioned in the letter dated 29-7-1983 that the resignation of the workman be accepted w.e.f. 1-9-83 . After submitting the letter dated 29-7-83 mentioned above , the workman realised his mistake , therefore he wrote another letter dated 19-10-83 to the Chairman , Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank which was received by the head office on 20-10-1983 whereby he withdrew his resignation and requested to permit him to perform his duties w.e.f. 19-10-83 . The resignation letter dated 29-7-83 had not been accepted by the Chairman Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank upto 19/20-10-1983 therefore, he was permitted by the then Branch Manager to perform his regular duties . Accordingly the workman had worked with the management Bank from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 . At the time ofjoining the workman submitted an application dated 19-10-83 , whereby he requested to grant him Earned Leave for the period between 3-10-83 to 18-10-83 . After submitting the joining report by the workman at Dhanpunji Branch of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, the Chairman wrote a letter dated 21-10-1983 to the Branch Manager , with a direction for not issuing any posting order tothe workman . After submitting letter dated 19-10-83 , the workman was permitted to perform his duties w.e.f. 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 at Dhanpunji Branch of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The workman was never relieved from the Bank after submitting his resignation . That on 24-10-83, while the workman was on duty, the Branch Manager read over a letter to him wherein it was written that the management had been considering his matter and hemay not be allowed to resume till further order . On it, the workman on 24-10-83 , met the Chairman of the Bank who asked him to wait . The workman also sent letters to his management on 23-4-84 and 19-11-84 by registered post for withdrawal ofhis resignation . That on 1-5-85 , he received the order that he had been relieved from the post on 1-10-83 .. Theworkman was not given any information for about 19 months and it was not justified to relieve him from duty thereafter. Therefore the order of relieving him from duty is void- ab- initio. It is prayed by the workman that the said order of relieving him from duty be set -aside and he be reinstated in service with back wages and all other benefits .

7. The following facts are admitted to both the parties . That workman Shri Bhajendra Nath Mathew was workingas clerk- cum - cashierat Dhanpunji branch ofBastar Kshetriya Gamin Bank in the year 1983. He wrote letter dated 29-7-1983 to the Chairman , Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jagdalpur whereby he submitted his resignation from service due to some personal problem . It was mentioned in the letter dated 29-7-1983 that the resignation of the workman be accepted w.e.f. 1-9-1983 . The photostat copy ofthe said letter is Exhibit W/ 1 on record.

8. As per pleadings and oral evidence of workman , after submitting his representation dated 29-7-1983 , he realised his mistake therefore he wrote another letter dated 19-10-83 to the Chairman , Bastar Kshetiya Gramin Bank which was received by the Head office on 20-10-1983 whereby he withdrew his resignation which was earlier submitted by him vide letter dated 29-7-83 . The Photostat copy of the said representation is Exhibit W/ 2 on record. That his resignation letter dated 29-7-83 has not been 3. The case of the management Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank in brief is as follows . That the workman was appointed as clerk- cum-casheir in the Bank and was posted at Dhanpunji Branch , District Bastar . On 29-7-83 , he submitted his resignation and requested that the same be accepted and he be relieved with effect from 1-9-1983 . He thus gave one months prior notice as per regulations of the bank. He again gave letter to the Branch Manager on 30-9-1983 stating therein that pursuant to his resignation letter dated 29-7-83 , he is leaving his service . He requested for accepting his relieving and went away . Consequent upon his resignation and letter dated 29-7-1983 , the Branch Managerrelieved him from duty vide memo dated 30-9-1983. Thus his resignation was accepted and he was relieved on 3267

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/ वैशाख 29, 1929

[ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

Manager, Dhanpunji Branch, Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank to the workman also support the above oral testimony of the witness . The oral testimony of the above witness that the Branch Maanger of Dhanpunji branch relieved him on 30-9-83 finds its corroboration in the Photostat copy of the letter by the Branch Manager to the workman dated 30-9-83 which is Exhibit M/3 on record. The management's witness Shri Panigrahi has deposed that Shri Mathews had subsequently submitted to the Branch Manager , Dhanpunji branch a letter on 19-10-83 addressed to the Chairman of the Bank stating that he is withdrawing his resignation request submitted earlier and reporting for duty onthat day. This testimony of the witness finds support in the Photostat copy of letter dated 19-10-83 of the management addressed to the workman ( Ex.W/4) . Shri Panigrahi , the management's witness , also stated in his affidavit that it is incorrect to say that Shri Mathew has worked in the Bank from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 . He had already been relieved by the Branch Manager on 30-9-83 ofhisduties at the Branch . That he might have come to the branch thereafter and might have stayed there on his own . However , such visits cannot be viewed or taken as he had been allowed to join in the Bank . That Shri Mathews was never been allowed to join after 30-9-83 . That this fact is clear from his own letter dated 11-11-83 and he himself has stated that he is not able to rejoin duty till date due to inaction on the part of the management of the Bank. It has been submitted on behalf of the mangement that Shri Mathew having been resigned from the Bank on 30-9-83 and having been relieved from his duty on 30-9-83 is not entitledto any relief.

accepted by the Chairman , Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank upto 19/20-10-1983 . It is further in the oral evidence of workman that he submitted an appication dated 19-10-83 whereby he requested to grant him EL for the period between 3-10-83 to 18-10-1983 . The Photostat copy ofthe said aforesaid application is Ex . W/4 on record. The further oral evidence of the workman is that after joining at Dhanpunji branch of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank , the Chairman wrote a letter to the Bank on 21-10-83 to the Bank Management with direction for not issuing any posting order to the workman . There is no documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence of the workman that he submitted his joining at Dhanpunji branch of the bank and he was permitted to join . In support of the above evidence , there is only one Photostat copy of the application dated 19-10-83 ( Ex. W/2 ) that he requested the Chairman of the Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jagdalpur that he may be permitted to join on 19-10-83 and the said application was received in the head office at Jagdalpur on 20-10-83 . It is proved by the documentary evidence i.e. the Photostat copy of letter dated 21-10-83 addressed to Branch Manager from the Chairman of the Bank (Ex . W/5) that on 21-10-83 , the Chairman wrote to the Branch Manager not to permit the workman to join again at Branch of the Bank under any circumstances . There is oral evidence of workman that after submitting letter dated 19-10-83 he was permitted to perform his duties w.e.f. 19-10-83 he was permitted to perform his dutiesw.e.f. 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 at Dhanpunji branch of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. This oral evidence of the workman is not corroborated by any documentary evidence on record. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman had withdrawn his resignation before being accepted by the competent authority and the workman withdrew it as a matter of right .

10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the workman that the workman has never been relieved from the Bank after submitting his resignation . He assailed the photostat copy of letter Ex . M/3 filed by the management submitting that it is a fabricated document . It shall be worthwhile to mention here that the learned counsel for the workman admitted that aforesaid Photostat copy of the letter and therefore it has been marked as Ex. M/3 and now he cannot be allowed to deny the said Photostat copy. Not only this , it is evident from the Photostat copy of the letter dated 30-9-83 (Ex. W/3 ) written by the workman to the Chairman of the Bank that the workman himselfmade admission on 30-9-83 that he relinquished his post pursuant to his resignation. The learned counsel for the workman further submitted that since the resignation letter dated 29-7-83 has not been accepted by the Chairman upto 19/20-10-83 therefore he was permitted by the Branch Manager toperform his duties from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 . Against the above, the learned counsel for the management sùbmitted that pursuant to the resignation by the workman , he was relieved from duty on 30-9-83 and he relinquished the post on his own . That Shri Mathew on his own attended theBank from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 , but he was not officially given charge. There is no documentary evidence to 9. In support of management's case , management's witness Shri Tarachand Panigrahi deposed that after submitting the resignation letter to resign from 1-9-83 , the workman submitted a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Bank on 5-9-83 wherein he requested extension ofdate ofhisbeing relieved from 1-9-83 to 1-10-83 stating that the formalities with regard to his resignation are incomplete. That he again submitted a letter addressed to the Chairman ofthe Bank on 30-9-83 that as per notice dated 1-8-83 he was giving up his employment pursuant to the resignation notice submitted earlier and requested to be relieved on 30-9-83 . Consequently he was relieved of his duties and post at the close of office hours on 30-9-83 and earlier notices dated 29-7-83 and 5-9-83 . The Branch Manager relieved Shri Mathews on 30-9-83 relieving him from his duties and from his post pursuant to his letter dated 30-9- 83. The Photostat copy of the letter dated 23-9-83 by the workman to the Chairman of the Bank (Ex.M/2 ) supports the above oral evidence of Shri Panigrahi that pursuant to his resignation , he relinquished the post on 30-9-83 . The Photostat copy of letter dated 30-9-83 by the Branch 3268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 19 , 2007 /VAISAKHA 29 , 1929

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] corroborate the oral testimony of the workman that he was permitted to join duty on 19-10-83 . The workman was employed at Dhanpunji branch Distt. Bastar. The Photostat copy of the application for permission to join is dated 19-10-83 and is addressed to Chairman , Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Jagdalpur . It is Ex . W/3 , which reveals that it was received at the head office on 20-10-83 . It is , therefore , difficult to believe that on 19-10-83 he was permitted to join. It is very clear from the evidence of Shri Panigrahi , the managements witness , that it is incorrect to say that workman attended duty from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 . The witness has specifically deposed that the workman came tothe branch office on 19th , 20th, 21st, and 22nd of October 1983 , all the 4 days on his own . The learned counsel for the management submitted that the workman might have gone and stayed at the Branch from 19-10-83 to 22-10-83 but such visits cannot be viewed or taken that the workman wasallowed to join in the Bank. Under the circumstances , itcannot be held that the workman was permitted to join duty on 19-10-83 and attended his duty till 22-10-83 .

From the perusal of the above regulation , it is clear that the regulations nowhere provides resignation can be effective only after acceptance . The clause stipulates the condition that the employees shall not leave or discontinue his service without giving a notice in writing to the Chairman . The acceptance of resignation was not a condition for cessation of relationship . The workman in the present case gave required notice and left the job on his own . His relieving was duly accepted by the Branch Manager and the workman was not allowed to join after 30-9-83 . It means that his resignation was accepted . It has been emphasised by the learned counsel for the management that the resignation has automatically taken effect from 30-9-83 and there is no provision for any acceptance or rejection of the resignation by the employee . Under Article - 10( 1 ) ( a ) aforequoted , the termination of service becomes effective at the instance of the employee and the service of the employee is not dependent upon acceptance of the same. In this respect, the learned counsel for the management placed his reliance on AIR 1989 - SC- 1083.

I have very carefully gone through the law cited above by the learned counsel for the management . In the law cited above , interpretation of service regulation ofthe Appellant Bank ( Punjab National Bank ) came into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . It was Regulation No. 20 which reads as under:

11. The learned counsel for the workınan submitted thatbecause the resignation of the workman was not accepted till 19/20-10-83 it could not be effective by then and he could take back the resignation before the same was accepted. In this respect, the learned counsel for the workman placed his reliance on 1981 ( 1 ) SCC- 405 and AIR- 2003 (5) SCC-455 . Against the above , the learned counsel for the management submitted that the Bastar Kshetriya GraminBank Staff Service Regulations which were prevalent atthe relevant time provides under Article - 10 as under:

"20 ( 1 ) Subject to sub - regulation ( 3 ) of Regulation- 16 the Bank may terminate the services of any officer by giving him 3 months notice in writing or by paying 3 months emoluments in lieu thereof.

" 10 Termination of Service by Notice : ( 1 ) ( a) An officer or employee shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving notice in writing to the Chairman of the Bank of his intention to leave or discontinue the service.

(b) The period of notice required shall be :

(2) No officer shall resign from the service of the Bank otherwise than on expiry of 3 months from the service on the Bank of notice in writing of such resignation . Provided further that the competent authority may reduce the period of3 months , or waive the requirement of notice ." ( i) Three months in the case of officers and

(ii) One month in the case of other employees .

(c) In case of breach by an employee of the provisions of this sub- regulation , he shall be liable to pay to the Bank as compensation a sum equal to his emoluments for the period of notice required of him .

(d) He shall also be liable to refund the pay or allowances or both , if any drawn by him while on training and make good the training expenses , incurred by the Bank or Sponsor Bank for deputing him for training .

(e) In exceptional circumstances the payment of such compensation and refund may be waived by the Chairman , at his discretion . "

Whileinterpreting the above regulation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on the expiry of 3 months from the date thereof or from the date on which he wished to resign. On the anology of the law cited by the learned counsel for the management , the termination of service became effective in this case at the instance of the employee and the service of the employee is not dependent on the acceptance of the resignation because the resignation became effective from the date on which the employee wishedto resign . In this case, the employee i.e. the workman wished to resign on 30-9-83 and relinquished his post on the said date on his own after giving one months notice to the management . Against the above , the learned counsel for the workman , as already mentioned above , submitted that because the resignation of the workman was not accepted till 19/20-10-83 , it could not be effective by then and he could take it back before the same is accepted , 3269 [भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 19, 2007/वैशाख 29, 1929

नई दिल्ली, 7 मई, 2007

placing reliance on 1981 ( 1 - SCC)405 andAIR-2003 (5) SCC- 455. I have gone through the law cited above . The law cited above is of no help to the workman in this case because of the workman submitted his resignation under Article- 10 of the Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations after having complied with the provisions thereof and his resignation became effective from 30-9-83 as hewished and on the said date , he relinquished his post on his own .

का.आ. 1476.- राष्ट्रपति, श्री राम गोविंद शुक्ला को 19-4-2007 ( पूर्वाह्न ) से केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण- सह - श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करते हैं । श्री राम गोविंद शुक्ला, केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण-सह- श्रम न्यायालय, कानपुर के पीठासीन अधिकारी के पद पर 19-4-2007 से 9-6-2009 तक अर्थात् 65 वर्ष की आयु पूरे होने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, बने रहेंगे ।

[संख्या ए-12011/01 / 2006 - सी.एल.एस.- II ] पी. के. ताम्रकार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th May, 2007 12. In view of the above , it is hereby held that the action ofthe management of Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Jagdalpur in terminating the services of Shri Bhajendra Nath Mathew , Clerk, w.e.f. 1-10-83 is justified and the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief. But considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the parties shall bear their own costs ofhis reference . The reference is answered accordingly in favour of the management and against the workman .

S.O. 1476.- The President is pleased to appoint Shri Ram Govind Shukla as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Kanpur w.e.f. 19-4-2007 (F.N. ) . Shri Ram Govind Shukla will continue to hold the post of Presiding Officer of the CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Kanpur from 19-4-2007 till 9-6-2009, the date heattains 65years of age or until further orders , whichever isearlier.

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

[No. A- 12011/01 /2006-CLS- II] P. K. TAMRAKAR, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054, 2007 .